Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Swimming

Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on his Department's policy to increase public participation in swimming.

Andy Burnham: The Secretary of State for Health and I have today written to all Members of the House following the announcement that we made on 6 June of a £142 million fund to help local authorities in England to offer free swimming to people aged over 60 and under 16, in support of a longer-term ambition to offer free swimming for all by 2012.

Michael Jack: I welcome what the Secretary of State will confirm in writing to us. I was about to buy a new pair of swimming trunks, when I realised that in the borough of Fylde, the problem would not be accessing a swimming pool. The financially hard-pressed borough is committed to closing one of its two municipal pools. The borough is not isolated in the pressures it experiences in maintaining publicly available swimming facilities. In pursuance of the answer that the Secretary of State has just given, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will work with the Local Government Association to investigate the financial pressures that hard-pressed district councils such as mine face in maintaining their swimming facilities?

Andy Burnham: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I should not want to dissuade him from purchasing his swimming trunks—we want to get as many people active as possible in time for 2012. Local authorities must make a judgment about providing enough pools for the local population. His council must take its own decisions on that. The scheme that I announced gives incentives to councils that are prepared to do the most to make swimming more accessible to people, including giving them the opportunity to access capital funding to support their swimming pool stock. I hope that he will talk to Conservative colleagues on his local council so that they can come up with proposals to get more people into pools, rather than let them decline, ensuring that more people are active in time for the Olympic games.

Ian McCartney: I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend. In 2005, Wigan metropolitan borough council—a Labour borough—introduced free swimming for under-16s, and in the following year it did the same for the over-60s. There have already been some 300,000 free swims, and tens of thousands of young and older people are taking up sport and leisure for the first time. In April 2009, the scheme is to be extended to all citizens of the borough. As a consequence, we will improve health opportunities for all in sport, and people like me will start swimming rather than end up having triple heart bypasses to save their lives.

Andy Burnham: I say to my good friend and neighbour that the Wigan scheme was very much the inspiration for the policy that we announced a few weeks ago. As he rightly says, it is popular and it gets people active. That is the best use of public money in my view—getting people healthy and happy, and getting them out of their homes to lead an active and independent life. My right hon. Friend puts it so well; I am proud that Wigan is one of the first councils that want to make swimming universally free by next year. I hope that will set a path for others to follow. He is right to say that in the long term the policy can relieve pressure on the national health service, and social services, too.

Adrian Sanders: When will the funds allowing people to claim for maintenance or capital projects be available, and will a community-owned and run pool be able to apply to access that fund?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are different models of swimming provision throughout the country, and in some cases community organisations own swimming pools. The idea is that the council is in the driving seat. We want councils to make swimming as available as possible and to remove the barriers. Whatever people say, for many families throughout the country, entry charges are still a significant barrier to going to the pool. We will announce more details before the summer recess, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We want to be as flexible as possible in helping councils throughout the country come with us on this journey of removing entry charges for swimming.

Ann Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative-led Bradford district council proposes the closure of four swimming pools in the district? I have a letter from a constituent of mine at Oxenhope, in which she says:
	"I am writing to voice my dismay about the proposed closure of four of our local swimming pools."
	That includes Bingley, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but the lady who has written to me is my constituent. She has been taking her daughter for swimming lessons for the past 30 weeks, and if the pool closes, they will cease. Will my right hon. Friend make representations to Bradford and persuade it not to close those pools?

Andy Burnham: I have been concerned about some of the local plans in Bradford and the area, where, it has been brought to my attention, five pools were earmarked for closure. The whole idea of the scheme is to stop councils managing a process of decline in swimming—in pools, stock and use—and get them thinking more positively about the contribution that swimming can make to people's sense of well-being, happiness and activity. I have made the judgment that swimming is universally popular—something that everyone can imagine themselves doing and that different generations of families can do together. I believe that, if councils take a positive view of the contribution that swimming can make to managing other costs, they will reach different decisions. However, I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend and other colleagues about pursuing those discussions locally.

Jeremy Hunt: I have a simple question: will the swimming offer be funded by the lottery?

Andy Burnham: A range of Departments contributed to the fund. The Departments for Work and Pensions, for Children, Schools and Families and for Communities and Local Government and the Department of Health came together and contributed to the fund that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had initiated and to which we, too, have contributed.

Jeremy Hunt: And the lottery?

Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman hear me out? The Departments' contributions make an important statement about the way in which the Government can collectively pursue a positive policy that will have an impact on people throughout the country.
	Let us have the discussion: if people think that the policy is the right way to go and that we should develop it further, I personally believe that that sort of activity would be a good use of lottery funds because it gives something back to everybody. However, the fund that I described is drawn from the Departments that I mentioned and will show that not only people who work in sport but the wider public endorse that way of working.

Jeremy Hunt: I am not sure whether the Secretary of State appreciates the significance of what he has said. In January, his predecessor gave a categorical assurance in the House that there would be no more lottery raids to fund Government Olympic budget miscalculations. Yet the Secretary of State claims that the lottery would be a good source of money, and the Under-Secretary said in a parliamentary answer last week that he would discuss with Sport England a lottery contribution this summer. When will Ministers leave the lottery alone and stop using it to fund Government Olympic budget incompetence?

Andy Burnham: It is amazing that the shadow Secretary of State can come to the House and try to proclaim as a bad news story an unprecedented announcement to take promoting physical activity to a different level. Five Departments are lining up behind that initiative, and that sends an incredibly positive signal to those who work in sport and to councils.

Jeremy Hunt: Plus the lottery?

Andy Burnham: I said quite clearly that the lottery has not contributed to the fund that I have assembled. I said that I was open minded about whether it could have a role if we wanted to take the initiative further, but it is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to mix up the £9.3 billion Olympic budget with the wider scheme, which will help sport, physical activity and the Olympic games to touch the lives of and have meaning for people throughout the country.

Mike Gapes: Ilford has had a swimming pool since 1931, and I swam there as a child. However, the Conservative council in Redbridge proposes to close the pool by December. What advice can the Secretary of State give to the more than 100,000 people in my constituency who will no longer have a pool because of Conservative council incompetence?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is a living embodiment of the good that swimming can do early, often and throughout one's life. I would give his council similar advice to the advice that I would offer the council of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer): to come out of a position whereby swimming is an easy target—the item to be cut and the first thing to take away from people when the pressure is on—and take a more enlightened view. If councils invest in sport and physical activity in the long run, they can relieve pressure on other parts of the council budget. Given that we have made the money available and are providing incentives for councils to take up the scheme, I hope that my hon. Friend can persuade his council to follow that route with us.

Swimming

Andrew Robathan: What estimate he has made of the number of people likely to take up regular swimming as a result of free access to swimming pools.

Andy Burnham: Experience from existing schemes, such as in Wales and Wigan, leads us to believe that our free swimming initiative will make an important contribution to the aim of getting 2 million more people active in time for the London Olympics games in 2012.

Andrew Robathan: Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), I have a pair of swimming trunks and I swim regularly. I pay tribute to the Government for wanting people to go swimming. However, from the Secretary of State's answer, it appears that the Government have no evidence that their proposal will increase the uptake of swimming among the over-60s or the under-16s. People who already swim will get free swimming, which is very nice for them, but that will not encourage swimming. In fact, let us be blunt: the Government are just spending money on an eye-catching gimmick.

Andy Burnham: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, the thought of him and his right hon. Friend in their swimming trunks is nearly putting me off my stride, but I will try to banish it from my mind. What I am beginning to hear, floating up, as it were, from the Opposition Benches, is a negativity and cynicism that is not shared by the public at large, who like the initiative and want the Olympic games to improve the way the country embraces sport and physical activity. The evidence is clear. My local authority has seen a nearly 50 per cent. increase in the number of young people going swimming. Trevor Barton, who was chair of Wigan borough sports council, and Rodney Hill, the chief executive of the Wigan leisure and culture trust, have said and proven that if we go down that path, people will take up swimming and new people will be brought into the pool. The hon. Gentleman might be cynical about that, but I most certainly am not.

Brian Iddon: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Labour-controlled Bolton council, which has already introduced free entrance to all swimming pools for all pensioners and children? This year, the council will introduce free swimming lessons for children. Furthermore, it will build a brand new swimming pool in partnership with the university and, surprisingly, the primary care trust, because the pool will have a health facility built within it. Is that not a good thing?

Andy Burnham: It is a very good thing. I was at the Bolton arena not long ago to see the efforts being made to engage young people in sport in my hon. Friend's constituency, and a mighty fine thing that is, too. What you are hearing today, Mr. Speaker, is that this policy—a Labour policy—is about the Government making sport available to as many people as possible. The Opposition carped about free entry to museums and galleries, which has seen the number of people using museums and galleries double, and they are doing the same today. I congratulate Bolton. I will have the courage of my convictions and say that what we are doing is the right thing to do. As a result, we can make lots more people healthy and active.

Lee Scott: Will the Secretary of State congratulate the London borough of Redbridge on its investment in leisure facilities, with improvements in my swimming pool in Ilford, North and the commitment that it has given to swimming in Ilford, South? Under health and safety regulations, the council may indeed have to close the pool later this year, but is consulting the entire borough on how to raise the £50 million needed to replace the swimming pool in Ilford, South. Will the Secretary of State congratulate the Conservative-led Redbridge administration?

Andy Burnham: I will congratulate any council, of any political colour, that takes a bold vision on sport and physical activity. Let there be no doubt about that. Let me say also that we are talking about a fund to benefit everybody in the country. Any council is absolutely welcome to make its case to benefit from it. In the past four years, more local authority pools have opened than have closed in this country, contrary to popular belief. In the local area agreement process, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has been conducting, more than half of all councils have selected participation in sport as a priority indicator. That tells me that, at the local level, councils are prioritising sport. I congratulate them, but I ask them to work with us and to persuade those who have a different view to change tack.

Peter Kilfoyle: Does my right hon. Friend wonder, like me, how we can encourage swimming under councils such as the Liberal Democrat council in Liverpool? It closed New Hall swimming pool in my constituency, which had been specially adapted for special needs? The next pool along, in Queen's drive, was merged into Alsop school, thereby taking it out of public use for half the day. How is that encouraging people in a deprived part of the city to take up swimming?

Andy Burnham: On my frequent visits to Goodison Park, I see the new facility at Alsop school. It looks like a very good facility, and I hope that my hon. Friend will work hard to ensure that it is made as widely available to the community as possible. As much as possible, we need to work with councils to identify the barriers that prevent facilities from being used, and to help them to overcome them. If all else fails in making progress down this path in my hon. Friend's constituency, I am sure that he will agree that swimming will always be free in the River Mersey.

Julie Kirkbride: The Secretary of State has just told the House that £142 million has been designated for this budget from a variety of Government Departments. Will he tell us how long he expects this budget to last, and at what point and in what financial year he will start raiding lottery funds?

Andy Burnham: The fund that we have put together is within the spending limits from the current comprehensive spending review. It predominantly covers the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11—the back two years of the current spending review. We will want to see how the initiative develops, but, as I have already said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), councils such as ours are already saying that they are minded to make swimming universally free from April next year. We shall look at the evidence that emerges from Wigan, and from Blackburn, where the primary care trust has already agreed to make swimming universally free from April next year. Let us work with the areas that are going down this path, examine the evidence and consider whether to extend the scheme further as we approach the next spending review.

BMX Tracks

John Mann: How many international standard BMX tracks there are in the UK; and how many of these are indoors.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The UK has three tracks capable of hosting European standard series events, none of which is indoors. As part of the development of cycling facilities for the London 2012 Olympic games and Paralympic games, a velopark will be created in the Olympic park consisting of an Olympic standard BMX track with 6,000 spectator seats. After the games, the facility will remain as a permanent open-air BMX track.

John Mann: Here we have a sport at which Britain excels, and Bassetlaw, which was the centre of the cycling revolution in Britain from the time of Tommy Simpson in the 1960s onwards, has one of the three BMX tracks. Will the Minister consider how much opportunities for our cyclist athletes would be improved, not least in terms of medal contention, if the BMX track at Harworth could be encased so that it is available in bad weather as well as in good weather? If that were to happen, we could be the very top team in the world, rather than just being among the top teams.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on championing some great sports. He will be aware that we have a BMX world champion in Shazane Reade, who is one of the leaders in the sport. My hon. Friend needs to speak to British Cycling, the national governing body for cycling, on the basis that it has transformed cycling. Anyone who saw the world cycling championships recently will know that Great Britain got 10 of the 17 gold medals available. Cycling is a progressive sport, and the organisation will perhaps consider my hon. Friend's bid in the light of the new sports plans.

Adam Price: As the international standard cross-country mountain biking tracks are in Wales, Scotland, the north and the west, why is public money being used to create a new track in Essex, which lacks one of the key essential requirements for mountain biking—mountains? Could we not hold the event in south Wales, where there is an excellent track at Margam?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I understand that there are a few hills in Essex. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, in that we need to ensure that the recent Sport England review actually works. We need to talk to sports governing bodies to ensure that their whole sport plans will benefit everyone through different types of sport. The cycling governing bodies are leaders in reacting to proposals, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to take up this issue with the relevant organisation.

Delivery Agreements

Celia Barlow: When he last met Arts Council England's chief executive to discuss delivery agreement monitoring; and what the outcomes of that meeting were.

Margaret Hodge: The Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with the chair and the chief executive of the Arts Council. We will meet them at the beginning of July to discuss the new three-year funding agreement and arrangements for monitoring.

Celia Barlow: Brighton and Hove arts commission has benefited from Arts Council England and Millennium Commission funding over the past few years, which has made a huge difference. The making a difference programme itself has put on nearly 2,000 performances and 300 events. Will the Minister tell me how she believes such funding will benefit not only the cultural diversity of my city but the run-up to the cultural Olympiad in 2012?

Margaret Hodge: We are very proud of our record of investment in culture. Two out of three people nowadays go to a performance of some kind every year. All the figures show that, with a real-terms increase in spending, people's participation and enjoyment of cultural experiences has more than doubled. Much of the work over the last decade or so—and, indeed, the work that we will be taking forward—has been to widen the pool of people who enjoy culture. Many who were perhaps disadvantaged in the past are now getting the benefit of that. In my visits to theatres, concerts, art exhibitions and dance performances, I am increasingly proud of the growing diversity of the audience and of the participation in those media.

Tote

Ben Wallace: What progress he is making on future plans for the Tote.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Government have now received advice on the strategic sale options to which I referred in my written statement to the House on 5 March this year. The Government are considering that advice and will announce as soon as possible how they intend to proceed.

Ben Wallace: It is now some seven years since the Government gave their manifesto commitment to privatise the Tote for the benefit of racing. As a result of dithering and failures in policy, the work force and the management are now still unclear about the Tote's future. Will the Minister please give a commitment to a final date when we will really know the future for the work force and the management so that we can ensure that the Tote continues as an independent successful model that benefits racing and Wigan?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I know that the hon. Gentleman, along with other Members, takes a close interest in the Tote's future—not only its development, but what will happen to its staff. The Goldman Sachs report is now with us and we will take a decision on the way forward at the earliest opportunity.

Jeff Ennis: What recent meetings and discussions has the Minister had with representatives of the British Horseracing Authority? Will he reassure the House that once the sale of the Tote has been completed, racing will receive its fair share of the sale as soon as practicably possible?

Gerry Sutcliffe: Again, I know that my hon. Friend, as co-chair of the all-party racing and bloodstock industries group, takes a keen interest in this issue. He will understand the complexity of the issues we face in trying to meet our manifesto commitment while also giving 50 per cent. back to racing. I have had recent meetings with the British Horseracing Authority, the Racehorse Owners Association, the Racecourse Association and others, and they all have a view on what should be done with the 50 per cent. amount after the sale. First things first, however, as we need to take a decision on the way forward, and when we have done that we can talk to the racing authorities about how to divvy up the profits.

Malcolm Moss: After seven years of dithering, incompetence and indecision, what confidence can the horse racing industry have in this Government to deliver any benefit to it from the sale of the Tote when Goldman Sachs is now reporting a £90 million black hole in the accounts and the price tag for the Tote has reduced by £100 million since last year alone?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I do not accept at all that there has been dithering. The issues are complex, involving state aid rules, the price of the Tote and how to give money back to racing. I believe that we have already shown in our discussions with the racing bodies that we are keen to move forward quickly and we will do so. We will honour the commitments that we have made.

David Taylor: Have we not already gone through plan A, plan B and plan C to get to the current plan D, and cannot we only surmise how many more alphabetic characters are to follow? Will not Brussels in any case veto any deal that redistributes any significant part of the proceeds to the racing industry; and in that light, should we not abandon the whole sorry saga?

Gerry Sutcliffe: We could do that, but it would be the wrong direction of travel. What we have to do is look at the options made available to us through the report that I mentioned. We will study it as quickly as we can and then take the appropriate decisions. In the interests of racing and of the staff who work at the Tote, I believe that we have to move forward. It is important to consider all the options, which I hope to do as quickly as possible.

Laurence Robertson: Half the proceeds of the sale would be welcome to racing, if indeed the Minister can get that past Europe, but probably more important is the ongoing contribution that the Tote makes year on year to racing. If the Tote is sold on the open market, how will he guarantee that the money remains available to racing year after year after year?

Gerry Sutcliffe: That is the difficulty if we sell. We will also have to determine what the 50 per cent. should go to by working through what the definition of "racing" should be. Everybody in racing thinks that they should receive the 50 per cent. following the sale, but I have tried to get the racing industry to be more modern in its outlook, which is why we have tried to find a different way of dealing with the levy.
	Whether it is with the pitch tenure positions or with the Tote, we are positively engaged with racing. All round the House, there are people who support racing and know that it is a great sport, but we have to try to move from a mentality of looking for handouts and towards the sport standing on its own two feet.

Tobias Ellwood: There is a sense of déjà vu: I understand that this question has been posed to the Government more than 40 times since 2001, when the manifesto commitment was made. The Minister must, at some point, make a decision—not only on the Tote, but, as he mentioned, about on-course bookmakers and the future of the levy. To add to that, we have the eagerly anticipated announcement, so to speak, on stakes and prizes. I plead with the Minister: may we please have some support for the £4 billion racing industry?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I will not take any lessons from the Conservative party on investment in racing. We have worked properly with racing to ensure that it modernises, which is why we have seen great developments and great strides forward. The issue involving the Tote is complex and governed by state aid rules. We want to ensure that we act in the best interests not only of racing and the people who work at the Tote, but of the taxpayer. On the other issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions, we will make announcements very soon.

Television Services (Sight-impaired People)

Alun Michael: If he will take steps to encourage the incorporation of voice-over narration and talking menus for elderly and sight-impaired people in the digital switchover process.

Margaret Hodge: Blind or partially sighted people and those aged 75 or over are two of the groups eligible for the digital switchover help scheme. Voice-over narration, or audio description, is accessible through the equipment provided by the scheme. Recent trials of a talking electronic programme guide developed by the Royal National Institute of Blind People appear promising and will be kept under consideration by my Department in relation to the scheme.

Alun Michael: I am sure that the RNIB and others who are concerned about people with sight impairment will welcome my right hon. Friend's response. I am sure that she appreciates that the digital switchover, which could open up access to so many services, might extend the digital divide unless this process is put in place expeditiously.
	Will my right hon. Friend agree to ensure that voice-over narration and talking menus are made available without delay through the core receiver requirements and for the set-top boxes that are available through that support scheme, which she mentioned? Will she also ensure that they are in place and available in good time for switchover in south Wales and my constituency of Cardiff, South and Penarth—that is, the middle part of next year?

Margaret Hodge: First, I acknowledge the contribution that my right hon. Friend made to digital switchover during his time as a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry. He is right to say that if we do not get this right it will increase the digital divide just when the opportunity of digital switchover ought to extend access to more programmes. We will ensure that audio description is integrated into the offer for all who need it. If we make progress as swift as technology allows on the electronic programming guide, clearly we will want to incorporate that, too, into the digital switchover programme.

Ann Winterton: Is the Minister aware that switchover in the borders later this year will affect hundreds of disabled and elderly people for whom it is essential that controls and menus are easy to use, if they are able to access digital TV at all? Will she assure the House that an individual's need, not the cost, will be the deciding factor in which type of digital receiver is provided, because some disabled people find freeview easier to use than Sky?

Margaret Hodge: Indeed, we must ensure that individuals have access to the system that suits them best. We have been working to ensure that the equipment available is accessible not just to the general population but to those with the greatest need, who might find it difficult to use buttons on a handset or whatever. That concern has driven our negotiations with manufacturers over the nature of the equipment.

Swimming

David Kidney: What the timetable and procedure will be for local authorities to apply for funding from the swimming challenge fund.

Andy Burnham: We are working with the Amateur Swimming Association, the Local Government Association, Sport England and others to develop the arrangements for implementing the scheme. We will issue guidance to local authorities as early as possible, and, in any event, in plenty of time to allow them to prepare for setting budgets in the autumn. I will make a further statement, outlining progress, before the House rises for the summer recess.

David Kidney: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. We dived into the swimming pool for Questions 1 and 2, and now we are on the surface for some swimming. Will he note that in Stafford the local council has just opened a brand-new, modern-design swimming pool, which has plenty of happy swimmers? The council is very interested in the scheme, but is anxious to know the criteria so that its plans for a new swimming pool can fit them. May I urge him to keep to the timetable that he has described, and to consult local government about design?

Andy Burnham: We have been very grateful for the help, co-operation and advice of the Local Government Association so far, and we will continue to have the closest possible dialogue with it in taking the scheme forward. As I said, the intention is to have a partnership with local government, not to impose anything on anybody. We want councils voluntarily to come up with the basic idea, and to help make swimming as free as possible. It is a fantastic statement to the public that brand-new facilities such as those described by my hon. Friend are available free. We will start with the over-60s and then hope to make progress on the under-16s. We will give details before the summer recess, which will allow his council to plan accordingly.

Philip Hollobone: In many parts of the country, local authority swimming pools are already very busy, whereas swimming pools in private gyms are often underused. Has the Minister thought about encouraging the participation of the private sector in the initiative?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In the past few years, many private sector pools have opened, and making the best possible use of them is a matter for local decision making. As I said earlier, more local authority pools have opened than have closed, which is in itself a positive statement. In constructing the scheme, we want to provide the capital that is available to those local authorities that are prepared to do most. If the hon. Gentleman will accept the logic, the more that people use pools, the more that such local authorities deserve help with the maintenance and improvement of facilities. He makes a good point: some councils' pools are run by private organisations on a contractual basis. I am prepared to be flexible to help all councils make the best possible use of the pools located in their areas.

Ticket Touts

Chris Bryant: If he will introduce legislative proposals to tackle ticket touts.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Government do not intend to introduce new regulation to tackle ticket touting. Ticket touting is banned for football matches on public disorder grounds, and for the Olympic games in 2012 to meet International Olympic Committee bid conditions. The Government have consistently taken the view that the consumer interest comes first, and market-led measures to benefit consumers are a far better option than the burden of legislation.

Chris Bryant: I thought that the Minister would say that, and I must say that I profoundly and utterly disagree with him. The truth is that ticket touts are parasites who prey on the legitimate interests of fans and the sporting and cultural achievements of this country. As he says, ticket touting is illegal in relation to the Olympics and football. Why should it be legal in relation to Wimbledon or big arts events? Let us make it illegal.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend. As he knows, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport failed to reach a consensus on the issue. He sits on the Committee—

Tobias Ellwood: No, he doesn't.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Well, he did; anyway, he has been vociferous in his support for making ticket touting illegal. The consumer should come first. First, we want to work with the governing bodies to see what the primary market can do to stop ticket touting. Secondly, we want to work with the secondary market to see what safeguards can be put in place in future. A market-led approach is better than a legislative one.

Topical Questions

Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Andy Burnham: Today, I shall place the interim report from the digital radio working group in the Libraries of both Houses. Millions of people are already enjoying the benefits of digital radio, and I believe that radio must have a digital future if it is to remain relevant.
	I am pleased that the working group has set a possible framework for digital radio migration, but a number of issues must be resolved before a decision on the framework can be made, not least the impact of digital migration on consumers. I look forward to the group's final report at the end of the year, and to considering what steps can be taken to build a strong digital future for radio.

Tom Brake: What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills about the consultation that that Department is conducting on informal learning, especially on the future of courses such as the exercise class that I attended at the Sutton College of Learning for Adults last Friday? Such provision is key to the delivery of the 1 per cent. increase in participation in physical activity that the Secretary of State wants to see. Can he promise some joined-up government and no cuts in exercise-related adult learning classes?

Andy Burnham: I have had one discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills. Both he and I recognise that the worlds of sport, music, the arts and culture have the potential to contribute enormously to informal learning provision for older people.
	I accept the hon. Gentleman's broad suggestion. The discussions are at the earliest stage and I do not want to imply that they are anywhere near finished, but I am thinking about how the DCMS world can make a contribution, and I will keep the hon. Gentleman up to date on progress.

Ian McCartney: The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) raised the issue of the Tote. May I remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that there is a wider issue for the industry as a whole? In constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), literally hundreds of jobs are at stake. It is important for the final decision to be right for not just the short term but the long term. Will it take account of the fact that in metropolitan areas such as Wigan, investment of this kind has been a driver for change in the labour market over the past decade? We should like that change to be sustained through the ensuring of good access to the excellent jobs that the Tote currently provides.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner). Both have shown considerable interest in matters relating to the Tote, especially those involving the work force. The decision will affect 600 jobs, so it is important that we get it right, not only for the taxpayer but for people who work in the north-west. I shall be happy to meet both my hon. Friends later today to discuss the issue in more detail.

Bob Russell: In November 2004, the most exciting archaeological discovery for decades occurred: the discovery of the only Roman chariot-racing stadium in Britain. The setting of the Roman circus is now threatened with residential development. Will the relevant Minister come to Colchester with officials and representatives of English Heritage? This is a matter of national and international importance, and more than just a matter for a local authority to determine.

Margaret Hodge: I am always interested in issues of national importance. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman write to me with the details so that I can consider this matter properly. If it requires me to visit his constituency, of course I shall be happy to do so.

Rosie Cooper: Can the Secretary of State assure me that people in West Lancashire—including Skelmersdale, where there appears to be a problem—will be able to go on receiving television programmes after the analogue signal is switched off next year?

Andy Burnham: My constituency is very close to that of my hon. Friend. When I look at Winter Hill and think about the signal being switched off in a little over a year's time, it certainly focuses my mind.
	I am aware of the problems in Skelmersdale, where people have historically received television programmes via a local authority-operated cable system that is now approaching the end of its useful life. Ofcom has required that a new relay transmitter to serve the town must be built and operational before switchover in the Granada area late in 2009. I understand that the process is likely to be completed as planned, subject to the availability of a suitable site, local planning permission and the allocation of suitable frequencies, but I assure my hon. Friend that I will pay the closest possible attention to the issue, and will ensure that her constituents benefit from switchover when the time comes.

John Whittingdale: Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern that has been expressed about his recent remarks that appear to rule out the possibility of taking advantage of the European Union audiovisual media services directive to allow some product placement on commercial television? If he has made up his mind on this issue, what is the point of having a consultation on it?

Andy Burnham: May I say to the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that the Government often conduct a consultation on the back of a preference—a clearly stated view—and that is what I did in this instance? I take the view that British television has benefited from having standards and integrity, and that it has an international reputation for that. I further take the view that, especially when we contemplate the pressures that commercial television may face in the future, we in this country should think about allowing the space between programmes to be sold, and not the space within them. I do not believe that British viewers want to think that the hand of the ad sales director might have been at play in editorial decisions. That is my preference, but I said in my speech that I understood that others would say that there are benefits to product placement. We will conduct the consultation, and although I have made my initial preference clear I am prepared to hear other sides of the debate. If the hon. Gentleman holds different views, he is welcome to put them to me, and at the end of the process we will come to a considered decision.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Paulsgrove in my constituency is an area of high deprivation with no local swimming pool. Under the Building Schools for the Future programme, a learning campus is being built and the local community would very much like a swimming pool to be part of that development. What can we do to ensure that local authorities work with other partners, use all the means at their disposal and take up all opportunities to encourage swimming in deprived areas such as Paulsgrove?

Andy Burnham: I would be very willing to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues in order to see how we might be able to help take further forward the discussions in her area. Only on Friday, I opened the Leigh indoor sports centre. It is part of the £80-million Leigh sports village, which, frankly, is my pride and joy. It is a scheme that will, in a deprived part of the country such as my hon. Friend's, give people access to the highest quality sports facilities. I could not be more proud of anything I have ever achieved than I am of that. If she is seeking to do something similar in her constituency, she will have my full support.

Jeremy Hunt: In January, the Arts Council announced that it was cutting funding to respected organisations such as the Derby playhouse, the Yvonne Arnaud theatre in Guildford and the City of London Symphonia, yet over seven years its spending on administration has risen from 5p in every pound distributed to 12p in every pound distributed. What measures will the Department take to ensure that the public's money is being spent on arts, not arts administration?

Margaret Hodge: Let me first say that in that same settlement, which was very generous, and under which there has been a £50 million increase in the money available to the Arts Council over what is a very tight spending review period, more than 80 new organisations received Arts Council funding for the first time. That is as it should be, because the arts change and it is important that the Arts Council reflects that in its distribution of moneys. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that we should always work towards reducing the money spent on administration and ensuring that it goes out to the front line. The Arts Council has been taking steps over the past years to reduce its administrative costs, and it has succeeded in doing so.  [Interruption.] From the figures I have in front of me, I do not recognise the figures the hon. Gentleman puts to us, but of course there is more work to be done on this, and part of the Arts Council's remit over the current spending review settlement period is to produce a cut in the administrative costs year on year.

Ian Lucas: Ashes cricket will be on television free to view next year, but only in Australia. Will the Government please take into account the additional money coming into English cricket through Stanford and through the Indian premier league and act now, rather than awaiting a review, to reinstate live Test cricket on the TV A-list?

Andy Burnham: I am as passionate about cricket—not just Test cricket but all cricket—as my hon. Friend is, and I understand how high passions run on this issue. However, I point out that when Test rights were drawn up on the secondary list—on the B-list—that allowed the England and Wales Cricket Board significantly to increase the amount of money it was able to invest in grass-roots cricket: £30 million in investment in facilities and clubs, and there is also the "Chance to shine" scheme, which has been a real success. There always has to be a balance between grass-roots investment and access to the sport. I hear what my hon. Friend says and I have a lot of sympathy with his wish to get more people watching cricket, but we always have to listen to the governing body and get money into the grass roots to get more young people playing.

Don Foster: Do the Government acknowledge that amusement arcades and bingo clubs are on their knees? In February, the Minister with responsibility for such matters promised to respond to recovery proposals within a week. In March, he said that he would respond shortly; in May, he said that it would be very soon. And yet we are still waiting. Is he aware that while the softer forms of gambling are collapsing, there is a huge growth in the highly addictive and super-lucrative gaming machines in betting shops? Has he not got his priorities wrong, and how soon is very soon?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have referred the issue of fixed-odds betting terminals to the Gambling Commission because of our concern about the migration to FOBTs. I am pleased to reassure him with the announcement that we will make a written statement this Wednesday to answer the issues of the British Amusement Catering Trade Association and the bingo industry.

John Robertson: The "Creative Britain" paper outlined that internet service providers must take concrete steps to curb illegal downloads, or consultation would begin in the spring on anti-piracy legislation. Given the obstinacy of some ISPs, such as Carphone Warehouse, in not doing their duty, can my right hon. Friend say when he proposes to introduce the proposals to regulate these people that have long been needed in this industry?

Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, which is of prime importance. The question is how, given the changing technology, we ensure that proper value is obtained for creators across all our sectors—be it music, film or the written word. We said in our "Creative Britain" document that if we could not get a voluntary agreement between the ISPs and the industry on these issues, we would introduce proposals for regulation. We stand by that, but I am pleased to report to my hon. Friend that the mere publication of the document is already encouraging both parties to come to the table. We are hopeful that we can in the near future obtain a voluntary agreement between them, to the benefit of all those who create in Britain today.

Mark Pritchard: The BBC is one of the few foreign broadcasting organisations that have been given permission to broadcast from the Olympics. Will the Minister give a commitment to the House that the Minister concerned will speak to the BBC Trust and to the BBC director-general to ensure that if there are human rights protests at the Olympic games in Beijing, they will not be censored by the Chinese or, indeed, by the BBC?

Andy Burnham: The questions that the hon. Gentleman raises are straightforwardly an editorial matter for the BBC, but in all her discussions with the Chinese authorities my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics has repeatedly made the point that there should be progress toward full freedom of speech on all issues. She continues to make that case at every opportunity.

Jim Cunningham: How will the new arrangements between Sport England and the national bodies encourage people to participate more in sport?

Andy Burnham: As my hon. Friend knows, we have made our new policy for Sport England public in the past few weeks, and it is very much a policy of working through the national governing bodies of sport. We want to get 1 million more people playing organised and competitive sport, and that means having a clear relationship with the governing bodies in order to provide more coaching and more competitive opportunities to young people, thus expanding the talent pool at the very bottom, so that we can increase the chances of international success for the country. That is the vision that we have set out. It is a clear vision that sharpens the distinction between sport and physical activity. We think it is the right way to go, when coupled with initiatives such as free swimming, which will help to get more people active.

John Grogan: In view of FIFA's statement that our world cup bid for 2018 will be decided entirely on its merits, with no reference having been made to the fact that we insist, as a nation, that all matches are shown on live, free-to-air TV, will Ministers now vigorously defend the principle that all matches in future world cup and European finals tournaments should be kept on the A-list of protected events and thus be available to the many, not the few?

Andy Burnham: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on listed sporting events and his robust defence of the need for such a list to ensure free-to-air access to our main national sports. I am as committed as he is to that principle, because it is important to balance giving sports access to the widest possible public and getting money into the grass roots. He will be aware that the list is subject to some challenge in Europe—for example whether it is possible to maintain such a policy. I assure him that I am vigorously defending the principles of the list, and I look forward to having continued discussions with him on this subject.

OLYMPICS

The Minister for the Olympics was asked—

Training Sites

Ben Wallace: What assistance she plans to give to potential Olympic training sites to make contact with overseas sporting bodies.

Tessa Jowell: Responsibility for promoting Olympic training sites lies with the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, which will publish a pre-games training camp guide at the Beijing games this summer. In addition, £25,000 will be made available by LOCOG as a credit to help attract national Olympic committees to the UK to set up pre-games training camps.
	I would like to take this opportunity to remind all Members that they can act as advocates for their local authorities and constituencies. The hon. Gentleman's constituency contains a training camp, which has been deemed suitable for equestrian events. There is the possibility for Members of this House to act as advocates and bring teams to this country.

Ben Wallace: As the Minister rightly says, Myerscough college in my constituency has been deemed a place for equestrian training. Unfortunately, although it has great facilities, it lacks the international networking skills that perhaps the larger venues already have. Will she assure us that any plans that Sport England and the Olympic committee put in place will help to target the smaller venues as well as to assist the larger ones?

Tessa Jowell: That is absolutely the case in respect of smaller sports, smaller countries and smaller venues. May I underline the hon. Gentleman's role in advocating, on behalf of the equestrian movement, the benefits of the facilities in his constituency?

Michael Jabez Foster: My home town of Hastings has made an offer, through the high commissioner, to provide some facilities to Sierra Leone. In respect of both pre-training and the occasions of the Olympics, the problem is frequently the cost of getting athletes from highly indebted countries to the event. Could some assistance be provided to help with the plane fares?

Tessa Jowell: This is precisely the kind of issue that LOCOG is addressing. I am happy to have further discussions with my hon. Friend about this matter, so that he can continue to pursue the interests of the Sierra Leone team.

Hugh Robertson: The key concern on Olympic training sites and, indeed, the wider London 2012 project is security. Last week, a KPMG report was extremely critical of security planning, noting:
	"It is...difficult to have confidence in current cost estimates in the absence of a full, costed security plan."
	That conclusion was then backed by the National Audit Office report on Friday. Three years after Singapore, and given the obvious importance of the issue, why is there no full, costed security plan?

Tessa Jowell: The fully costed security plan, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, is in the process of being prepared. It is being led by the Home Office with proper oversight and management arrangements. Yes, work has been under way for some time, but we wish to ensure that the security budget pays only for those matters that are specifically relevant to the Olympics, and that no further additionality or other wish lists are being funded from the Olympic budget. Because of the lead that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has taken, there is confidence that the planning of security is properly under control and we will have a safe and secure games, with security a proportionate part of the way in which the games are run and managed.

Sally Keeble: Are the funds that my right hon. Friend mentioned just for the training camps or will local authorities and local sports partnerships be able to access them to help to attract sporting bodies to our areas, as we want to do in Northamptonshire?

Tessa Jowell: The £25,000 credit to which I referred is specifically available to encourage national Olympic teams to come to any of the 600-plus preferred and approved training camp venues. That money is not available if an Olympic team chooses to use non-approved facilities.

Tom Brake: Will the Minister confirm also that the assistance that will be given will include advising potential Olympic training sites on what to tell overseas sporting bodies about the action that the Government intend taking in relation to safeguarding the future of the Olympic village and how much additional investment might be required to ensure that that is delivered?

Tessa Jowell: That is a good try at getting in a question about the financing of the Olympic village, on which the hon. Gentleman has been briefed, as has the Conservative spokesman. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) will understand that because of the economic downturn, Lend Lease has experienced difficulty in raising all the debt that it originally sought to finance the village, but there is full confidence that the financing package will be completed by the end of this year, and work on the site has already begun.

Target Pistol Shooting

David Amess: What facilities she plans to provide for target pistol shooting at the 2012 London Olympics.

Tessa Jowell: The Royal Artillery Barracks at Woolwich has been designated as the venue for all the shooting competitions at the 2012 games, including target pistol shooting. The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games and the Olympic Delivery Authority are currently developing their plans for the facilities at Woolwich.

David Amess: As an enthusiastic supporter of the Olympic games coming to London, I am increasingly worried about the state of the British economy. Will the Minister now explain how she can justify having this competition in a temporary building in Woolwich at a cost of £28 million, which is against the Olympic charter of a lasting legacy, when the competition could easily be held at the headquarters in Bisley?

Tessa Jowell: First, the cost that the hon. Gentleman refers to has not been confirmed. Secondly, yes, the venue at Woolwich will be temporary, but the intention is that the facilities will be relocated in other parts of the country. Part of the commitment to holding down costs and living within the Olympic budget is the need to strike a proper balance between temporary venues, which the Olympic park will include, and the permanent venues that will provide a lasting legacy.

Paul Farrelly: The target pistol shooters will of course be housed with the other athletes in the Olympic village, for which the private sector financing deal is now in some difficulty. Last week, I saw some Olympic Delivery Authority figures: £450 million from the private sector and £550 million from the ODA for that facility. However, my understanding is that the baseline contribution of the ODA in the budget is only £300 million, with the balance—of up to £1.5 billion, not £1 billion—to be provided from the private sector and other contributions. Can my right hon. Friend shed some light on the discrepancies in these figures?

Tessa Jowell: With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that he might be referring to the figures for the Olympic village, not the figures for target pistol shooting, which have not been published. The figures for the Olympic village have been subject to some coverage. They have been fully disclosed at this stage to the National Audit Office and are on the public record. The important thing is that the deal is a matter for commercial negotiation and as such, it is not right nor possible—neither is it the best way to protect taxpayers' money—to make every step of the negotiations available. However, in the spirit of the cross-party running of the games, I have shared the information in real time with Opposition spokesmen and the Select Committee.

European Council

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Council held in Brussels that I attended with the Foreign Secretary on 19 and 20 June. The main business of the Council on Thursday and Friday evening was to focus on the economic challenges ahead—the triple challenge of rising oil prices, rising food prices and, because of the credit crunch, the rising cost of money—and, in the wake of the US downturn, on measures to keep the European economy moving forward.
	Important conclusions were also reached on the Irish referendum, on climate change, on the millennium development goals and on the European response to the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. On Thursday evening, in the discussion on the Irish referendum vote, the Irish Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, offered to the Council meeting in October a report on the next stage for Ireland. The Council held that other member states will continue with their ratification processes and I was able to report for the UK that—like in 18 other countries—the Lisbon treaty had completed its parliamentary process and that the Bill received Royal Assent on Thursday. Once we have received the judgment in the ongoing legal case, we will move to ratification.
	This time last year the price of oil was about $65 a barrel. At the last European Council in March it stood at $107. At the June Council, the oil price had risen further still to more than $135 a barrel. The global challenge that we face is a rising demand for oil—particularly from China and the other emerging economies now and in the future—that has so far been only partly met by an increase in supply, driving up fuel bills for families across the whole of Europe. Governments are taking action domestically to help—including our winter allowance and the new agreement that we have signed with utility companies for low-income households—but we know that those are ultimately global problems that require global solutions. The shared European view is that we must take action to reduce our dependence on oil and to improve our energy efficiency.
	The new technology of carbon capture and storage will help us continue to use coal, oil and gas in a way that avoids harmful emissions, so earlier this year we reiterated our commitment to move forward with up to 12 commercial scale carbon capture and storage plants by 2015. Last week, accepting UK arguments about the importance and urgency of the matter, the Council called on the Commission to bring forward an incentive mechanism to achieve that goal. Britain is ready to have the first such plant in Europe.
	Transport will account for two thirds of future increases in oil demand so improving fuel efficiency and exploring alternatives to petrol and diesel is essential to incentivise innovation among car manufacturers. The UK will continue to push for a commitment to an EU-wide car emissions target of 100 g per kilometre by 2020—down from 160 g, and a 40 per cent. reduction—saving the British family about £500 a year in fuel costs. At Britain's urging, the Council also agreed to explore the scope to accelerate the introduction of commercially viable electric vehicles and the infrastructure that their widespread use would require across the EU. Generating electricity is significantly less carbon intensive than using oil, and with all major car manufacturers—including all UK-based ones—now close to developing commercially viable hybrid and electric vehicles, they have the potential to reduce our dependency on oil and our carbon emissions as well as to create thousands of jobs in the British automotive industry.
	All those measures will help to meet our overall target of reducing carbon emissions by 20 per cent. by 2020—or by 30 per cent. as part of a wider international agreement—but these decisions are made in the context of a dialogue between oil producers and consumers, where both should commit to greater transparency and a better balance between supply and demand. The Council therefore welcomed Saudi Arabia's high-level meeting between oil producers and consumers, which I attended, in Jeddah this weekend. I am today writing to all European leaders to inform them of the results of the Jeddah process, which will lead to a follow-up summit in London later this year. I can tell the House that the summit discussed measures to deliver a more sustainable global oil price, to reduce the risks and uncertainty that can increase prices and to ensure greater investment in oil production as well as energy efficiency and alternatives to oil.
	I proposed that Britain and other oil consumers should open up our markets to new investment from oil producers in all forms of energy, including renewables and nuclear, providing all producers with a long-term future in non-oil energy. In return, oil producers should be open to increased funding and expertise in oil exploration and development through co-operation with external investors, providing increased oil supply in the medium term while growing economies adjust to a less oil-intense long-term future. The House will know that Saudi Arabia announced at the summit its increases in oil production.
	The prices of rice and wheat are now double what they were only a year ago. Higher food prices cause concern to many of us here at home, but in poor countries, where food often accounts for more than half a family's spending, they can be even more devastating. To tackle rising prices both here and overseas and to help boost agricultural production, the Council agreed to implement the conclusions of the Rome food summit. It also agreed to assess the evidence of the indirect impact of biofuel, and the UK's Gallagher review on the indirect impact, due to report shortly, will be part of that process.
	We also committed to work towards a successful outcome to the Doha trade round, where eliminating trade-distorting subsidies and import restrictions could increase global gross domestic product by as much as $300 billion a year by 2015. That is something that I have discussed with President Bush, President Lula, Chancellor Merkel and President Barroso as well as with the European Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, in recent days. I believe that while we are at the eleventh hour in getting a trade deal, a trade deal is definitively within our grasp.
	The European Union must take action on the elements of the common agricultural policy that raise the cost of food for consumers across Europe. Removing incentives for taking arable land out of production, for example, could reduce cereal prices by up to 5 per cent. The Council agreed to re-examine the issues of fair competition and sustainable agriculture.
	As part of the year of action on the millennium development goals, and ahead of the G8 in July and the United Nations meeting in September, the European Council signed up to an agenda for action that reaffirms EU aid targets and sets specific milestones for the developing countries, to be achieved by 2010: increased European investment of €4 billion to recruit 6 million more teachers, and, on health, an extra €8 billion to help save 4 million children's lives and provide for 75 million more bed nets against mosquitoes in Africa. I will be pushing the G8 in July to ensure that we have as a world the 120 million nets that we need, so that every child in every family in the world is able to sleep safely at night. The Commission has also agreed to establish millennium development goal contracts, linking European Union spending to specific and agreed outcomes by developing countries, that will secure value for money. I am pleased to announce a British contribution of £200 million to that fund.
	The Council also discussed the deteriorating political and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. In recent weeks under Mugabe's increasingly desperate and criminal regime, Zimbabwe has seen more than 80 killings, 2,700 beatings, the displacement of 34,000 people and the arrest and detention of Opposition leaders, including Tendai Biti and Morgan Tsvangirai. In the face of that unacceptable situation, the European Council reiterated its readiness to take further measures against those responsible for the violence. We will seek to impose travel and financial sanctions on those in the inner circle of the criminal cabal running the regime.
	The House knows that since the Council met last week, the situation has deteriorated further still. As a number of African Presidents and Ministers have already stated, the regime has made it impossible to hold free and fair elections in Zimbabwe, and state-sponsored terror and intimidation have put the Opposition in an untenable position. Our thoughts are with the people of Zimbabwe, who are facing an unprecedented level of violence and intimidation from the regime. The whole world is of one view: that the status quo cannot continue. The African Union has called for the violence to end. The current Government—with no parliamentary majority, having lost the first round of the presidential elections and holding power only because of violence and intimidation—are a regime who should not be recognised by anyone.
	The UN Security Council will meet later today. The Foreign Secretary will make a detailed statement in a few minutes following the discussions that he and I, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Africa, Lord Malloch-Brown, have held with African leaders. Today, I have talked to the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon; to the president of the African Union, Mr. Kikwete; to the President of South Africa; and to Morgan Tsvangirai himself. Members of the Southern African Development Community and the African Union leadership will want to meet to discuss the emergency. We understand that there are plans for meetings very soon, and we support that happening quickly.
	We urge that SADC observers' evaluations of the seriousness of the situation on the ground be made public immediately so that the whole world can witness the truth about what has been happening. We urge that the UN and the African Union work together with SADC to send envoys and a mission to Zimbabwe to discuss the situation on the ground and the way forward. We believe that the UN envoy should be allowed to return immediately to examine the human rights violations. The international community must send a powerful and united message: that we will not recognise the fraudulent election rigging and the violence and intimidation of a criminal and discredited cabal. We are ready to offer substantial help for the reconstruction of Zimbabwe once democracy has been restored.
	The Council also expressed its ongoing concern about the humanitarian situation in Burma in the aftermath of the cyclone and called for a return to democracy and the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners. We made clear our continued determination to play a leading role in ensuring peace and stability in Kosovo.
	Our national interest is, and remains, a strong Britain in a strong European Union. We will continue to focus on an outward-looking European agenda that tackles in an effective way the global, economic, environmental and development issues that affect us all. That is what the Council sought to do at its June meeting, and that is what the Government will be doing in the run-up to the French presidency that starts in July. I commend this statement to the House.

David Cameron: May I first welcome what the Prime Minister said about the millennium development goals and about Burma?
	On Zimbabwe, we welcome what the Prime Minister says about the EU widening sanctions on members of that regime, but will he make sure that it really happens this time? Will the Government press for a UN commission of inquiry into the abuses of human rights, with a view to future action by the International Criminal Court? Vitally—he hinted at this, but perhaps he could go further—will he set out a detailed rescue package for the post-Mugabe era to make it absolutely clear that when Mugabe goes we will do all that we can to breathe new life into that country and into those people who have suffered so much? But is not there something else that we can do? Should not we now make it clear that we are prepared to withdraw international recognition from Mugabe's regime to say to him and his henchmen: "You are no longer the legitimate Government of the country you are terrorising"? The Foreign Secretary shakes his head, but the Prime Minister's statement was so opaque that perhaps he can be a little bit clearer in his reply about withdrawing recognition. If he rattles these things off like a machine gun, it is extremely difficult for people to follow things. Let me take this nice and slowly so that he can concentrate.
	Let me turn to the cost of living. There are three key policy areas where the EU has real power to affect the cost of living—free trade, reforming agriculture and, crucially, keeping its own costs under control. On that basis, was not the European Council a huge disappointment? On free trade, there was nothing more than platitudes. There was no new action on the common agricultural policy, and not a mention of the EU keeping its own costs under control. Meanwhile, at a time of rising living costs, have not our own Government given up £7 billion of our rebate—taxpayers' hard-earned money—with nothing in return?
	The Prime Minister rightly focused on the price of oil and the need to encourage renewables and new technology. We welcome what he says about the 100 g carbon dioxide target for new cars by 2020—that is, I can announce, another Conservative policy introduced by this Government. Given his enthusiasm, though, why is he going ahead with the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station without carbon capture and storage, why has he done so little on tidal and wave power, and why is he dragging his feet on feed-in tariffs? Clearly, the supply of crude oil is important, but what is he proposing to do about the danger that prices are being driven higher because financial institutions are investing so heavily in commodities, including oil?
	At the heart of this European Council was the issue of the Irish referendum. The Prime Minister said so little about Ireland, I thought that he was about to tell us that it was a far-away country of which we know little. Did not the Prime Minister face a very clear choice? He could have done the difficult thing and declared the treaty dead, or he could have done the easy thing, and joined others in starting the process of bullying Ireland into a second referendum. Is it not the case that in taking the latter path, he has let down the people of Ireland, let down Britain and let down Europe? Can the Prime Minister really explain why he has done this?
	Governments of this country, whether Labour or Conservative, have never wanted a European constitution, with a European President, a European Foreign Minister and a European diplomatic service. Even Tony Blair was clear, when the process started, in saying that he did not want a constitution. The Prime Minister has only ever attempted to sell the treaty on the basis of what he has opted out of, rather than anything positive in the document. So why, when the only people given the chance to speak say no, does he fail to show any leadership? Even Tony Blair was better than this. When France and the Netherlands voted the treaty down in its original form, Tony Blair halted ratification and said that people were
	"blowing the trumpets round the city walls."
	Why did the Prime Minister not give the same sort of lead following the Irish vote?  [ Interruption.] I have not only read the treaty; I have also looked at your website.
	Is it not the case that anyone arguing against this treaty is met with four entirely bogus arguments? First, the Government say that it is time to stop talking about institutional reform. If that is the case, what is the Prime Minister doing supporting a new institutional treaty? Secondly, he said last week that the treaty is absolutely essential for enlargement. Is it not the case that that is simply untrue? The Labour Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee—I am glad to see him in his place—has said that that is
	"not legally true, and...not politically true either."—[ Official Report, 18 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 980.]
	Instead of giving cover to those who want to slow down or halt the enlargement process, will the Prime Minister correct that statement today? Thirdly, he says that if the treaty is killed off, we would be isolated in Europe. But is that not wrong too? On our side, against this steady creation of a European state, are the Dutch voters, the French voters and now the Irish voters.
	Is not his final argument the most bogus of all? He says that any party that chooses to talk about the loss of national vetoes, the dangers of a European superstate or giving people a vote in a referendum is somehow backward-looking and indulgent in old politics. Does he not see that what is backward-looking is the political elite in Brussels, endlessly coming up with new powers to transfer to a European Union without giving anyone a say? In every other walk of life, people are being given more control, more choice and more freedom. That is the new politics. When is the Prime Minister going to wake up and realise that the European Union is going in entirely the wrong direction?
	A year ago, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing street and said that he would protect the British way of life, build trust in government and bring the change that could not
	"be met by the old politics".
	But let us look at what he has done: he has brought back a constitution, pretending it is a new treaty—[Hon. Members: "No!"] Yes. He is taking part in the bullying of a small country that has voted against it, and insisting on driving through the treaty without allowing the British people a say on it. Half-truths, ignoring democracy, breaking promises and shutting people out when they should be given a say: can you get any more old politics than that?

Gordon Brown: Let me start with Zimbabwe. We all know about the deterioration of the situation—on that, we are agreed—but I would like the House to know the extent to which we will work with other countries to try to find a way forward for the people of Zimbabwe that avoids violence, brings an end to intimidation and allows them to have a fully democratic Government in their country.
	It is right that sanctions have been placed against the bank accounts of 130 people. It is also right that the European Union, at our prompting, is considering further financial and travel sanctions not only against those individuals, but against others and their families. We know the names of the people responsible for running the criminal cabal surrounding Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and we are determined to force through the sanctions and to track down the money that is in their accounts in other countries.
	It is also right that we are taking action through the Security Council. I spoke to the Secretary-General earlier this afternoon, and it is right that the Security Council expresses, through a presidential statement, its distaste for what has happened, its desire for an end to violence and its call for democracy to be restored in Zimbabwe. I have spoken to the other African leaders, as has the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Africa. Many of those leaders signed a statement last week, calling for democracy in Zimbabwe, and they, too, are appalled by the recent turn of events and understand the frustrations that have led the opposition party to pull out of the elections, but they want a positive way forward that avoids an extension of the violence. I call on the African Union and the Southern African Development Community, working with the United Nations, to send a mission to Zimbabwe so that we can see a way forward from today's events.
	The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the human rights situation in Zimbabwe. The United Nations has sent an envoy, who has been in Harare and is now in Pretoria. We would like the Government of Zimbabwe to allow him to return so that he can report to the world on the human rights situation. The whole world now sees the regime for what it is, and there is a consensus in the House that what has happened is intolerable. We want an immediate end to violence because the loss of life is unacceptable, but we also need a way forward for the people of Zimbabwe.
	I confirm to the Leader of the Opposition that we have not only offered help for reconstruction, but are working with other countries on a detailed plan to help the Zimbabwean people so that, once democracy is restored, reconstruction can happen, poverty can be alleviated—many people are not even getting food aid at the moment, even though non-governmental organisations want to get it to them—and Zimbabwe's economy, which should be one of the strongest in Africa, can be restored to its proper place, delivering jobs and prosperity to the people of that country.

David Cameron: What about recognition?

Gordon Brown: On recognition, I made it clear that we do not recognise the regime as legitimate. That has been made clear for many weeks and it is clear in the statement that I gave the right hon. Gentleman before the questions today.
	We are working hard to ensure that a trade deal takes place. Discussions are happening at the moment and I hope that there will be a ministerial meeting soon. I hope that, before we go to the G8, we can make progress on getting a signal that protectionism is unacceptable around the world. A world trade deal will, incidentally, help developing countries. After all, it is the Doha trade deal.
	The Leader of the Opposition said that we had announced the go-ahead for a coal power station. That is not the case—the matter is still under discussion. We want to move forward on wind and wave power in the United Kingdom. There are local planning objections, some from members of the Conservative party, to wind power, but we are determined to move forward with our renewables objectives. A full statement on that matter will be made on Thursday.
	I come now to the right hon. Gentleman's objections to the discussion in Europe on the Irish referendum. Let me make it clear that the Irish reported to us and said that they wanted time to discuss the matter in their country. They also said that they wanted to report to the Council. It is for the Irish to make their position known, and they made it absolutely clear. The Irish Government made it clear that they were not seeking to persuade other countries not to ratify the treaty. That is why the Leader of the Opposition is isolated in Europe; he claims that other European Governments are with him, but every other country is moving ahead with the ratification process because, unlike him, they believe the first words of the declaration of Brussels almost a year ago: the constitutional concept has been abandoned and the reform treaty is very different from the original treaty, which has been forsworn. He asks whose voice has been heard—this Parliament's voice has been heard and he should respect the fact that the House of Commons and the House of Lords both voted in favour of the treaty; otherwise it could not have received royal consent.
	The right hon. Gentleman wants environmental co-operation round the world, but refuses to support co-operation in Europe. He wants to tackle poverty in Europe, but refuses to support the social chapter and wants to repatriate social policy. He wants a world trade deal, but that can happen only through Europe working as Europe to make that possible. He wants action on food prices, but that, as well as action on issues related to the economy, can be best done by being part of the European Union. I sometimes think that the Conservative party forgets that nearly 60 per cent. of our trade is with Europe and that 3 million jobs depend on our membership of the European Union. The Conservative party is isolated not only in Europe, but in the perverse view that blames everything on Europe, when Europe is delivering many good things for the British people.

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.
	Compared with other six-monthly European Union summits, last week's was not a hugely significant one. In truth, it was more about catching up with fast-moving developments than about setting the pace for the future. Rather than being their master, the summit was in many ways a slave to events, whether the aftermath of the Irish vote on the Lisbon treaty or the unscheduled spat between the French President and the Prime Minister's good friend, the EU Trade Commissioner.
	On the Lisbon treaty, the Prime Minister is right, of course, that we need to respect the need for the Irish Government to consider their next steps before October. However, as a supporter of the treaty, I none the less worry that we might soon make the best the enemy of the good. Uncertainty beyond October would genuinely raise the spectre of a paralysed European Union, unable to deliver concrete benefits to European citizens. So will he give some assurance that the treaty's fate, whatever one thinks about it, will be sealed one way or another in October and that we will not be pitched into months of further uncertainty about the treaty?
	On the issue of Zimbabwe, I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to working in the European Union and the United Nations. I hope that the international community will consider all the options available, including the case for stopping foreign currency remittances into Zimbabwe, restricting electricity supplies from South Africa and Mozambique, and encouraging the Southern African Development Community to take more action. However, does the Prime Minister agree that there are more things that he could do now, here? Will he, for instance, consider allowing asylum seekers who are fleeing Mugabe's brutal regime to live and work temporarily in the United Kingdom, until such time as Zimbabwe is more stable and they can return home?
	I also welcome the summit conclusions in favour of carbon capture and storage technology. However, how does the Prime Minister square that approach and the summit's unambiguous conclusion with the strong indications that his Government will go ahead with a new generation of dirty coal power stations that are CCS ready, but not CCS functional, such as the one at Kingsnorth?
	Finally, it is good to see the European Union grappling with the issue of food and fuel prices. However, the Prime Minister's summit-hopping, from Europe to Jeddah, is not enough. We need him to take practical steps here at home, too. So will he emulate the example of other European Union countries, such as Spain, whose Government have clawed back some of the massive subsidies that energy-generating companies have been handed on a plate through the European emissions trading scheme, to compel energy companies to help the fuel poor and to promote energy efficiency in our homes on the scale that is now urgently needed?

Gordon Brown: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Zimbabwe. All of us are appalled by the violence taking place, and all of us are looking for a way forward. Each asylum case is dealt with on an individual basis, but I will consider what he has said about that. However, he must agree that the priority is to see an end to the violence in Zimbabwe and a way forward that allows democracy to be properly in existence there, and then, once democracy is restored, to see how we can help with the reconstruction of that country.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned carbon capture. We are leading the rest of the European Union in seeking to have the first demonstration plant, and then the first commercial plant, for carbon capture. We want the EU to provide a mechanism by which that will be possible, because it is an expensive thing to do. We are urging the Council—I hope that he would support this—to ensure that, from the budget of the European Union, there is a means by which carbon capture can be given some support.
	The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned food and oil. I agree with him that they are the major problems that many households up and down the country face, with the cost of food in the supermarket and the cost of petrol at the petrol pumps, as well as gas and electricity bills being higher as a result of the oil price. However, he underestimates the extent to which we have raised the winter allowance. We have provided additional help for insulation, which was billions of pounds in previous years and will be billions of pounds in the years to come, to help people insulate and draught-proof their houses, and to make energy-efficient and environmentally sensitive adjustments. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the utility companies, I think that he has forgotten that we have just negotiated a deal that gives us £150 million a year after next year—the deal will go for many years—to provide extra money to give help to low-income households.
	The right hon. Gentleman's first point was about the report on Ireland. We have said to the Irish Government that it is for them to come forward with their proposals. It is for them to suggest, as they have done, that they need time to look at this. They will then submit a report to the Council in October. At a time when we have 26 other countries moving towards ratification, the Irish will come to us with their views about what can be done, and we will look at the matter in October. It is fair to give the Irish Government the time to assess the situation and then bring their proposals forward to us.

Mike Gapes: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and particularly for his remarks about Zimbabwe and Burma. He also referred to Kosovo. Will he give the House more information about what discussions were held on the progress of the implementation of the EU-led programme for the judicial and police takeover in Kosovo, and on the prospect of the enlargement of the European Union and the ongoing discussions with Croatia about further enlargement in the western Balkans?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question; he takes a huge interest in these matters. There was a long discussion about the proposals for the next stage for Kosovo at the Council meeting and at the Foreign Ministers' dinner the night before, and the UN Secretary-General's proposals for reconfiguring the support that is given to Kosovo were mentioned. The EU will take a bigger role in future and I believe that, despite all the differences that have been expressed over Kosovo, there was a general welcome for the proposals.

Malcolm Rifkind: Having lived and worked in Zimbabwe, may I suggest to the Prime Minister that the collapse of law and order in that country has now reached a point at which it is no longer a question simply of the internal trauma of the Zimbabwean people? There is now a threat to the stability of the whole of southern Africa. Does the Prime Minister agree that perhaps the only key to progress lies with the African Union and with SADC? Will he try to impress upon the leaders in southern Africa, who are now speaking out more eloquently than they have done before, that the answer is not simply a mission to Zimbabwe but a withholding of recognition of Mugabe's Government by the African Union and SADC, and a threat to the Zimbabwe Government that they will be suspended from the African Union and SADC, if they do not embark immediately on the necessary reforms?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that question. I know of his great interest in Zimbabwe and that he worked at the university there for some time. I have talked to him about that on previous occasions. He is absolutely right to say that African leaders must be vocal in their condemnation of what is happening. I sense that the surrounding leaders are becoming increasingly angry and appalled by the events that are taking place, and that they are now prepared to speak out against them. He is also right to say that we should discuss all possible measures to ease the situation there. I agree with him that a mission to Zimbabwe in itself is only the first stage in dealing with the problems that exist. I also agree that none of the African states should recognise the legitimacy of the Mugabe regime, and they should certainly not recognise any elections—if they go ahead—that take place at the end of the week.
	I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will sense from the conversations with African leaders that I have mentioned, and from the statements that they have made, that there is a new mood in Africa that is unprepared to accept the violence, the intimidation, the lack of democracy and the poverty and degradation that have been forced upon the Zimbabwean people. He is in good company in saying that the whole world must speak out and give no legitimacy to that regime. It is time that we supported the people of Zimbabwe, who want democratic rule and a return to prosperity.

Michael Connarty: I would like to ask my right hon. Friend many questions about the policy issues, but I am afraid that there is a great barrier between my wish and the reality. That barrier is the Irish referendum. It is quite clear from all the legal advice and the Crotty decision that Ireland would require another referendum or amendments to be made to the constitution, the Lisbon treaty—[ Interruption.] You know what I said about that in the past. The treaty would have to be amended in some way to allow Ireland to have an opt-in or an opt-out in the way that Denmark had. That would then require re-ratification by all 27 countries.
	It seems to me that everyone expected something more enlightening and open than just waiting to see what we can get the Irish to come up with. I urge the Prime Minister to tell us whether anything else went on at the Council and to give some hope to those who want to see the European Union expand that there was more in it than simply waiting to see whether the Irish can somehow change their minds.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is also Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee and provided the House with a report previously. I think that he would agree, however, that in the situation in which we find ourselves, when 26 countries are moving ahead towards ratification, but one country after a referendum is unable to do so, we should give that country time to consider the position. There are many reasons that the Taoiseach will want to look at in reflecting on the result of the referendum and many issues were not exclusively concerned with the treaty itself. There are reasons such as the state of the economy and other matters in Ireland, as well as the provisions of the treaty, that could have contributed to the result—[Hon. Members: "Ah."] I have to say that the Taoiseach has set these issues out in speeches over the last few days, which provides all the more reason for listening to the Irish Government as they review what has happened and make progress towards making a statement to the European Council in October. That is the right way to proceed—to be sensitive to what the Irish Government will wish to say.

John Stanley: Is it not patently clear that people such as Mugabe and those around him, who have been responsible for the murder of scores of people, who have brutalised thousands and wiped out the livelihoods of millions, should now be brought within the ambit of international criminal law? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a commitment to that as a matter of Government policy?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of conditions in Zimbabwe. The Foreign Secretary will be making a further more detailed statement about what is happening there. The Zimbabwean Government are not signatories to the International Criminal Court provisions and it would require a motion by the UN Security Council to bring them within those provisions. We will of course look into everything that needs to be done, but the priority now is to secure an end to the violence and a way forward for the people of Zimbabwe and then to secure the reconstruction of the country. I have already mentioned the action that we propose to take in respect of imposing travel, financial and other economic sanctions on the criminal cabal around Mugabe.

Stuart Bell: May I assure the Prime Minister that, notwithstanding the comments of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, every European Council is significant and every European Council reflects the forward march of the Union? In respect of the question about the Irish raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), the House should welcome the statement of the Taoiseach to come back in October and explain and define how the Republic of Ireland will stay at the heart of Europe.
	As to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) about enlargement to the east, does the Prime Minister agree that such enlargement of the 27 member states cannot take place uniquely on the back of the treaty of Nice?

Gordon Brown: I think it is generally recognised that the treaty of Nice contains provisions that make it very difficult for the EU to move ahead with 27 members. At one stage, the Opposition parties wanted a referendum on the treaty of Nice and now they want us to govern Europe by the treaty of Nice; I think the best way ahead is to implement the reform treaty. It is right to listen to what the Irish Government say and it is right for them to review the situation. That is clearly the best way forward and I would have thought that every sensible Member in the House would support it on that basis.

Iain Duncan Smith: Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), I served in Rhodesia, as it was called in those days, in 1979 in order to bring universal suffrage to that country. I was proud of our position then, but I am not particularly proud of ours or Europe's right now. Does not the secret to providing a solution lie in Pretoria and Beijing? Is it not time that we said in no uncertain terms to the Chinese that if they wish to be accepted as a decent nation, they should stop supporting violent regimes such as Mugabe's? If we also said to President Mbeki, who is almost alone in South Africa in supporting that man, that if he pulled out the stops, made Zimbabwe a pariah state, cut off all support and said to Mugabe, "Go or we will finish you", he would be gone in a week.

Gordon Brown: I understand the knowledge of the situation that the right hon. Gentleman has given from when he was in the country many years ago. I have to say to him that the UN Security Council will meet this afternoon and I believe that there will be a presidential statement. That will require the countries that are part of the UN Security Council and that play a part in its affairs, including the ones he has mentioned, to be able to support that statement. I hope that they will support a statement that says in the strongest terms that the violence is unacceptable. What has led to the opposition leader pulling out of the election is perfectly understandable and a way forward has to be found for the Zimbabwean people, but that will be discussed by the UN Security Council later this afternoon.
	I talked to President Mbeki before I came to the House this afternoon and urged it upon him that there had to be a solution and a way forward found, but he, too, will in my view join the statement that will be made by the UN later this afternoon, which shows that South Africa, too, wants an end to the violence and a solution to the problems we face.

Quentin Davies: First, I congratulate the Prime Minister on the considerable success of the summit and on the meeting in Saudi Arabia. Does he agree that true leadership consists of being guided by the long-term interests of the country and that, in the case of the EU, that means playing a central, constructive and, indeed, leading role, and in not constantly picking quarrels, sending signals that we do not want to be part of the venture at all and for ever playing to the gallery?

Gordon Brown: The Conservative party, as everybody knows, is isolated in Europe. It not only wants to renegotiate this treaty, but it would have renegotiated the other treaties signed under this Government—Amsterdam and Nice. It wants to withdraw from the social chapter and from social policy in Europe. It has no support in any other part of Europe for doing so. It should start to recognise that it is isolated in Europe. If the Conservatives were in power, we would be in the second division as a result of it.

Adam Price: In response to the global energy crisis and, in particular, to help hard-pressed sectors such as the hauliers, the French Government tabled a proposal at the European Council to introduce a cap on fuel taxes when oil prices reach $150 a barrel. The Austrian Government proposed a windfall tax on oil speculators, who have been heavily criticised by the US Congress and American regulators recently. Surely that is a more attractive proposal than going cap in hand to authoritarian regimes in the middle east. Did the Prime Minister support the French and Austrian initiatives?

Gordon Brown: As far as speculation is concerned, the EU, like the American Congress and other bodies including the Treasury in Britain, is looking at the forces at work in the marketplace. If there is any speculative activity, which is market manipulation, they will report on its existence. On the hon. Gentleman's other proposal concerning VAT and the discussion on it, the Council agreed to look at all proposals that the different countries were putting forward. A report will come on that in the next few months.
	We will look at those proposals, but the hon. Gentleman should also know that we in Britain have done what many other countries have not. We have raised the winter allowance for pensioners to help them with their fuel bills; we have negotiated a deal with the utilities to help low-income households; and we have frozen petrol duty, as we did in the Budget, for the next few months. The Chancellor will announce later what we will do in future.

Gisela Stuart: Following the Irish no, there have been suggestions that work is going on that tries to disaggregate the Lisbon treaty into those things that could be brought in without treaty amendment and those that are institutional changes that could be piggy-backed on to a Croatian accession treaty. Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking to the House that if any British official is involved in any such negotiations, he will inform the House either in writing if the House is in recess or in a statement, or via the Select Committees?

Gordon Brown: I can say that there was no discussion of that at the European Council.

Patrick Cormack: While I welcome what the Prime Minister has said about Zimbabwe, may I ask him to take up the opportunity presented by Nelson Mandela's visit to this country? Although Mr. Mandela, who has unrivalled moral authority in southern Africa, has retired from international politics, will the Prime Minister seek to persuade him to appeal to President Mbeki and say to him that the image of southern Africa is tarnished further by every minute that this evil man remains in power in Zimbabwe? He should be given the opportunity to go quietly, but if he does not do so, he should be put in the proper place, which is in the dock at The Hague.

Gordon Brown: I will raise those matters with President Mandela when I meet him later this week. The whole world is appalled at the violence and everybody who has a love of Africa is appalled at what is happening. Now that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned it, the whole House will want to send its best wishes to President Mandela on the occasion of his 90th birthday. He has been a true servant of Africa and of the world, and his courage is unsurpassed in modern times.

Ken Purchase: I thank the Prime Minister for a generally very helpful and welcome statement. May I ask him for assurances with regard to his view that there should be external investment in Britain's nuclear industry, which is already causing some concern in the country? It strikes me, and perhaps others, that should investment come from certain Saudi quarters and nuclear stations be built with Saudi money, that would offer a tremendous security risk to the country.

Gordon Brown: Any nuclear work in this country, including nuclear stations, happens under the strictest of conditions attaching to both security and safety. Those conditions will be rigorously and strenuously upheld at all times. I must tell my hon. Friend that some of our nuclear industry already has external investment.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The European Council received a report on the extensive preparatory work already done on aspects of the Lisbon treaty, including the External Action Service or European foreign ministry. Given that the treaty can no longer come into effect, certainly not on 1 January, did the Prime Minister take a lead and demand that all that anticipatory work stop immediately, or is he, on that as on everything else, continuing to defy the verdict of the Irish people?

Gordon Brown: That work is not going ahead in the Foreign Office, and nor was it discussed at the European Council. We are very clear that there must be unanimity on the foreign policy issues raised by the treaty—that is the condition on which we signed it.

Mark Hendrick: My right hon. Friend will recall the December 2001 Laeken declaration triggering a process to bring about the objectives of making the EU more transparent, democratic and efficient, and fit for a Europe of more than 27. Given the deliberations of the Irish and the difficulties that they face, will he do everything in his power to see that those original objectives are achieved at the October Council?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is right that there are many questions that the Irish Government will want to consider as a result of the defeat in the referendum on supporting the European treaty. Those are the kind of issues that they will consider as they prepare the report for the October meeting of the European Council. It is not for me to say exactly what they will come forward with; that is a matter for them. But I am absolutely sure that they will want an open, transparent and democratic European Union.

Mark Pritchard: The Prime Minister mentioned the increase in Saudi oil production. Does he believe that that is a result of his visit to the region and his personal intervention, or that it was a decision made prior to his arrival?

Gordon Brown: It was a decision made by the Saudi Government as the right decision to increase oil production around the world. All oil producers are sensitive to the fact that demand for oil is rising very quickly, as a result not just of what is happening in China, India and Asia, but of the growth in the oil-producing countries themselves. Supply will have to adjust to meet that demand. There are many ways of doing that: to find alternative sources of supply than oil, such as nuclear and renewables; and to make the use of oil more efficient, through improved technology for running vehicles and other means of conserving energy. One way forward will be that those oil suppliers who have the capacity to do so should use that capacity to increase their production of oil. The Saudi Government are aware that many people have argued that it is important that they increase their production where they can, and that is what they announced yesterday.

David Hamilton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing the pilot scheme for carbon capture and storage to the United Kingdom; only through that means will we deal with the Chinese and Indian problem. If we can develop carbon capture and storage in a way that can be sold, it will be a big step forward. If he wants to do that, the billions of tonnes of coal in the United Kingdom should be used for that purpose, and I suggest that the plant should be in Scotland.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the United Kingdom's energy resources. I can also tell him that we are working on a carbon capture and storage project with the Chinese.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Prime Minister share my view that Croatia should accede to European Union membership on schedule, or does he believe that it should be used as a pawn in a vain and doomed attempt to save the Lisbon treaty?

Gordon Brown: When I met the Croatian Prime Minister last week, I told him that it is this Government's view that Croatia should not be held back from its membership of the European Union, that the negotiations should proceed as planned, and that we hoped that the timetable for membership could be met. Of course, Croatia must meet the conditions for membership, but I have every reason to believe that it is working to meet those conditions, that it will meet them, and that it is in the interests of Europe for it to meet them.

Andrew Miller: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the leadership that he has shown on the issue of future vehicles, which is enormously important to the British economy. We have a very complex transition to undergo, and if Britain is to play a leading role, we must also manage the manufacture of internal combustion engines and secure the maximum efficiency from them. May I urge him to bring together representatives of power generation, oil refining and the vehicle industry, and to create a high-level summit to work out the best way forward for the strategy?

Gordon Brown: I shall be happy to do that. My hon. Friend has fought hard for the car industry in this country, as well as fighting for the best environmental standards. The United Kingdom will continue to lead the battle in Europe to secure a lower car emissions target. We are aware of the sensitivities relating to particular models in the United Kingdom and will bear them in mind, but it is important to recognise that the prize ahead of us is a 40 per cent. reduction in emissions as a result of what we do. That is why I think that my hon. Friend's proposal should commend itself to Members in all parts of the House.

Bob Spink: Article 6 of the European Union constitutional treaty states that following ratification:
	"The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Government of the Italian Republic"
	by each country. Does the Prime Minister intend, if Stuart Wheeler loses his case, to deposit the United Kingdom's instrument of ratification in Rome—yes or no?

Gordon Brown: Yes, we would hope to move forward, but we are confident that we will win the case in the courts. We believe that we have the right case and a good case. Let me clear up matters for the House. We wrote to the judge saying that we knew he was considering these matters and we wanted to proceed to ratification. He asked us if we would wait until he had given his judgment. We were happy to do so, and we now know that his judgment will come this week. What that judgment will be is of course a matter for the judge, but we believe that we have a good case, and after that we will proceed to ratification.

Derek Wyatt: May I draw the Prime Minister further on China? Can he tell me how we are to stop Chinese inward investment in Zimbabwe, and also reassure me that the money-laundering that is going on pertains to Chinese banks in Hong Kong and Beijing?

Gordon Brown: We will examine the matters that my hon. Friend has raised. Clearly, the sanctions that we are considering are sanctions on individual members of the regime, but I will look at what he has said. I believe that China will support the presidential statement from the United Nations today, and will support both an end to violence and the restoration of conditions in which democracy can happen and flourish in Zimbabwe.

Douglas Hogg: The Prime Minister has said nothing about Afghanistan. Will he tell us whether he raised with the Governments of Germany and France the possibility of German and French troops being deployed in Helmand province in an operational role? Does he agree that the Government's decision to deploy British forces in the province without assurances from the Governments of France and Germany that they would reinforce on request was an act of the grossest incompetence?

Gordon Brown: I have talked to the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France on a number of occasions about the challenges in Afghanistan. We must remember that more than 40 countries are involved in supporting efforts in Afghanistan both to secure law and order and to bring democracy and prosperity to the country.
	Germany is active in pushing forward with the programme that all of us want to support, and is leading in respect of the training of police forces for the future in Afghanistan. It has just doubled the number of police forces there, and I applaud the Chancellor for taking that step. The French are to move troops to the east of Afghanistan, which will allow American marines to move to Helmand, thus strengthening the position there in the months to come.
	As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, last week the Secretary of State for Defence announced that we would reconfigure our troops in Afghanistan and ensure that there were additional troops there for the work that needs to be done. We all know of the sacrifices that British servicemen and women have made in Afghanistan. We are determined that those sacrifices will lead to the democracy that we want to see there and to greater prosperity for the Afghan people.

Mary Creagh: The Prime Minister will be aware that the first millennium development goal is the eradication of hunger, and while a 40 per cent. rise in global food prices over a year is painful for European consumers, it is catastrophic for the poorest living in developing countries. What impact does my right hon. Friend think the rise in food prices will have on the achievement of that millennium development goal, in particular with reference to Zimbabwe, 45 per cent. of whose population is currently dependent on food aid?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The first thing that should happen in Zimbabwe is that the non-governmental organisations providing food aid should be allowed to do so; at present, hundreds of thousands of people are being denied food aid because the NGOs are not allowed to operate. My hon. Friend is also right that 100 million people face famine as a result of the increased food prices and the inability of many countries to deal with the food shortages in their midst. We are determined to work with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to do more about that. At the conference in Jeddah yesterday, the Saudi Arabians offered $1 billion extra for relief from the high oil and food prices and the problems facing the poorest countries, and we are talking to the World Bank about what more we can do together to meet the need for food around the world.

Vincent Cable: After the Jeddah meeting, can the Prime Minister answer some of the myths about the oil market, notably the myth that oil producers are deliberately withholding supply when spare capacity is only 2 per cent., and the myth perpetuated by the Conservative leader today that prices are where they are because of financial speculators rather than the underlying reality of rapidly rising demand and fixed supply?

Gordon Brown: On speculation, I have said in answer to another question that the Treasury is looking into that matter. An inquiry is going on within the IMF and the US authorities are conducting an examination. If there has been market manipulation, that will be exposed by the work being done. On supply, I am satisfied that many of the largest oil producers are trying to supply the market. The problem is that there has been insufficient investment in capacity and refining in previous years, and another problem is that some oil-producing countries get their oil to the marketplace in inefficient ways. These forces should be examined. That is why British oil companies, and oil companies from outside the region, should be allowed to invest, so that we have higher production and better refining in these areas. It is also why, reciprocally, we should agree that the oil producers should be able to diversify their portfolio and invest in other aspects of energy so that they have an interest in the stability of the whole energy market.

Peter Bone: The British people would like to know from the Prime Minister what part of "no" he does not understand.

Gordon Brown: The last time the British people voted on the European Union they voted yes, and the Conservative party has never come to terms with the fact that Britain is part of the European Union and that it should remain at the centre of the European Union. Instead of using every excuse to oppose the European Union, it should start to recognise that if it has truly changed as a party, it would have changed its visceral opposition to the European Union.

Philip Hollobone: Ahead of the start of the French presidency of the Council, what discussions did the Prime Minister have with President Sarkozy about French plans for greater defence co-operation in general, and the creation of EU-controlled defence forces?

Gordon Brown: I answered that question last Wednesday. We issued a statement after the meeting with President Sarkozy when he came to Britain only a few months ago. We outlined those areas where defence co-operation was not only taking place, but was good for Britain, Europe and the world. I said last Wednesday that those people who were trying to suggest that there would be a merger between the British and French navies were totally wrong, because when one examines the detail even of the French statement, one sees that it is made absolutely clear that there is to be co-operation and working together, not merger and amalgamation.

Zimbabwe Elections

David Miliband: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the situation in Zimbabwe.
	I am sure that the whole House will unite in its condemnation of the depravity of the Mugabe regime; in grieving at the needless loss of life in Zimbabwe; in wanting to send a clear message of support and solidarity to the people of Zimbabwe at this time; and in supporting new African efforts to find a resolution to the crisis. We share both their demand for a democratic future and their belief that they should not be denied by this violence or intimidation.
	Since 29 March and the extraordinary scenes of courage shown by ordinary people who put their faith in democracy and the ballot box, we have seen a regime that has reverted to type. President Mugabe and his key generals used changes to the law as a means of identifying those people who chose to vote for change. From then onwards, a campaign of violence was inflicted on those people, intended to punish them for having had the temerity to say no to Robert Mugabe and no to ZANU-PF. We know that 34,000 people have been displaced, 2,700 injured and 84 murdered since that day.
	This is not British propaganda. Non-governmental organisations have documented the existence of torture camps. Independent media have published the names of those who have directed and orchestrated the violence. African election observers have seen the violence with their own eyes. Thousands of teachers and public servants who had volunteered as presiding officers in the first round withdrew their names for fear of violence and intimidation in the second round. By Sunday, only 84 election observers had been accredited, when more than 10,000 had applied. It is also a matter of public record that Morgan Tsvangirai has been detained five times in the last 10 days, and that the secretary-general of the Movement for Democratic Change, Tendai Biti, has been in prison and charged with a trumped-up treason offence since arriving back in Harare. The stage was set for the most rigged election in African history.
	The failure is not of the opposition but of the Government. Robert Mugabe and his thugs made an election impossible, and certainly made the notion of a free and fair election farcical. It is clear that the only people with democratic legitimacy are those who won the parliamentary majority on 29 March, and who took most votes in the first round of the presidential election, and that was of course the opposition.
	If I may, I will pick up on one point that came up in the exchange between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. We do not—repeat not—recognise the Mugabe Government as the legitimate representative of the Zimbabwean people. We will not "de-recognise" the state of Zimbabwe, because that would mean the withdrawal of diplomatic representation and all that goes with it, but the Prime Minister could not have been clearer that we do not believe that a Government who have clubbed their way to victory and defied the constitution, which requires a second round within 30 days of the first round of the election, can claim to be the legitimate representative of the Zimbabwean people. Zimbabwe does, however, need a broad-based Government who command the confidence of the majority of Zimbabweans and, in addition to stopping the violence, that must be the focus of regional and international efforts.
	Since the announcement yesterday, the Prime Minister, Lord Malloch-Brown and I have spoken to Foreign Ministers and key figures in southern Africa and around the world. This is a crucial moment for democracy and prosperity right across Africa and the whole region. Ahead of the election, 40 senior Africans underlined their concern at the conditions in Zimbabwe. The African Union Commission has called for violence to end. The head of the pan-African parliamentary observer mission has said that violence was now at the top of the agenda of this electoral process. Zambia's President Mwanawasa, who is currently chair of the Southern African Development Community, has said that
	"the current political environment in Zimbabwe falls far short of"
	SADC's "principles and guidelines". He said yesterday, more strongly, that the situation in Zimbabwe was scandalous and that what was happening there was embarrassing to all Africans in the region. I applaud his frankness and that of his Angolan and Tanzanian colleagues, who have spoken in similar terms. It is now for SADC and AU leaders to convene in early session and to establish a clear basis for regional engagement on the issue.
	At the European Council last week, the Prime Minister and other leaders underlined their readiness to take further measures, should President Mugabe attempt to steal the election. On behalf of the EU, the Slovenian Foreign Minister has issued a clear statement condemning the violence and the conditions that forced Morgan Tsvangirai to withdraw from the election. I spoke to Foreign Minister Rupel last night to welcome that statement, and to discuss with him now the need urgently to consider how we can put further pressure—a widening and deepening of the EU visa ban and targeted financial measures—on Robert Mugabe and his elite that can be actioned at the next meeting of EU Foreign Ministers. Javier Solana and Commissioner Michel have both now issued statements condemning the violence and supporting Morgan Tsvangirai's decision.
	I have also spoken to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, and I welcome his statement yesterday. Later today, the Security Council will discuss Zimbabwe. I am sure that our permanent representative will speak for the whole House when he says that the UN must contribute to the resolution of this crisis before the entire region is destabilised further. It is right and it is necessary that the Security Council, the African Union and SADC work together on this. The UN agencies have prepared for continued help for refugees who flee Zimbabwe.
	The UN Secretary-General's envoy remains in the region and should be allowed to return to Zimbabwe, but the burden will still be borne by the region and by Zimbabwe's neighbours, and the role of their leaders is vital. Britain has long and historical links with Zimbabwe. I have never believed that the rights and wrongs of our history should prevent us from speaking clearly and frankly about the situation today. Robert Mugabe's misrule does not invalidate the struggle for independence; our colonial history does not mean we cannot denounce that which is wrong. The test, at all times, should be whether our commitment and action can help the people of Zimbabwe.
	The cynical decision to suspend non-governmental organisations delivering vital humanitarian aid shows how far Mugabe has gone in abandoning Zimbabwe's people. Our foremost duty is still to press for humanitarian space to be re-opened and for those NGOs to be allowed to restart operations. Some 1.5 million people have been affected by the ban imposed by the Mugabe regime. As the second largest bilateral donor, we will continue to provide aid and assistance as we can. The Secretary of State for International Development chaired a meeting this morning to consider what more we can do to support urgently those in Zimbabwe. Just before this sitting of the House, I spoke to our ambassador in Harare, and he and his staff are working hard to maintain a full suite of diplomatic roles in Harare. Travel advice remains under review and recommends against all but essential travel to Zimbabwe.
	We will continue our efforts publicly and privately to press for a solution to this crisis that reflects the will of the people in Zimbabwe. I am sure hon. Members will agree with me that such a solution cannot come quickly enough. Mr. Mugabe says that only God can remove him from office—let us hope the people of Zimbabwe get there first.

William Hague: May I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House to make that statement and say at the outset that I think that there will be unanimous agreement with what he said about the violence and murder of recent weeks? Should it not now be clear to the world that this is a despotic regime that cares nothing even for the welfare of its own people and that has no democratic credibility whatever? Does he agree that no one should condemn the Movement for Democratic Change for withdrawing from such a manifestly un-free and unfair election? As Morgan Tsvangirai has said, his party was
	"facing a war rather than an election."
	We should commend the bravery of those opposition figures and supporters who campaigned despite the overt threats against them and in the face of appalling violence towards and suffering for their families.
	The response by Zimbabwe's neighbours and the wider international community should be swift, united and decisive, and we welcome everything that the Government have done to encourage such a response. We welcome their commitment to raise the issue of Zimbabwe at the UN Security Council today. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether the Government will put actual proposals to the Security Council, for instance, on a UN commission of inquiry into the grotesque abuses of human rights taking place in Zimbabwe? Does he agree that unless there is a negotiated solution, Mugabe and those around him must one day be held accountable for the crimes being committed? Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the Government will at least call for and gather support for a United Nations referral to the International Criminal Court?
	The Government announced earlier this year that they would seek an informal moratorium on arms sales to Zimbabwe. Is that still the Government's policy, and is there any possibility of it being achieved? The Foreign Secretary rightly referred to European Union sanctions. This is surely the time for those to be seriously extended and rigorously enforced. In particular, should they not include extending the EU visa ban and assets freeze to associates and relatives of regime members, many of whom currently travel and study in Europe with impunity? The time has surely come for the pusillanimous policy of allowing Mugabe to attend summits with the European Union to be struck down once and for all—there should be no place for the man at any of the world's summit tables.
	I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said, in clarifying the Prime Minister's remarks, about not recognising Robert Mugabe's regime as the legitimate Government of Zimbabwe. On that point, the Foreign Secretary is aware of statements—he listed some of them—by SADC and its leaders that the election should not now go ahead as planned. The President of Zambia, who is also the chairman of SADC, has said that postponement was needed
	"to avert a catastrophe in the region".
	Since that is the view of those countries, and even now the regime seems bent on going ahead with the rerun, does it not follow that it is time for SADC countries to withhold recognition of the legitimacy of the regime?
	Have we not also reached the point at which South Africa's willingness to prop up the Government in Harare is harming South Africa's image in the world and when all friends of that country should call on the South African president to live up to his regional responsibilities?
	There are between 3 million and 4 million Zimbabwean refugees living in neighbouring countries. The latest shocking violence and the economic collapse are expected to create another wave of desperate people fleeing the country. The Foreign Secretary mentioned it in his statement, but can he tell the House what help has been offered to the neighbouring countries in dealing with that problem?
	Whatever happens in Zimbabwe over the next weeks, we must stand ready to continue to support the people. Is he satisfied that we have prepared as fully as possible for the rehabilitation of Zimbabwe at the appropriate time, once the country is set on a clear course towards the rule of law and democracy?
	Finally, from a wider perspective, the early 1990s saw a positive trend towards multi-party elections in Africa. For various countries, they marked a transition from an extended period of authoritarian rule to fledgling democratic government. They held out the possibility that democratic practices might be deepened on that continent. However, the recent use of violence, intimidation and politically motivated harassment of various forms to retain power in Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia and now, so spectacularly, in Zimbabwe have undermined that trend. Is it not therefore more crucial than ever that we send a message of unity and clarity to the criminal regime of Mugabe and those who may be tempted to use intimidation and brutality against their own people that that can never be accepted as the norm, and that the people of Africa deserve the rule of law and freedom just like the rest of us?

David Miliband: I counted 12 questions from the right hon. Gentleman, so I hope that he will forgive me if I try to pick out not the easiest ones, but those that I have not covered at great length so far. Certainly there is no condemnation of the MDC from anyone who has their senses about them. The life and limb of its supporters were at risk.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether, in the happy circumstance of a negotiated solution or way forward, we would "call for and gather support for" criminal action against Robert Mugabe. Sometimes calling for such things makes it more difficult to gather support for them, but we certainly believe that all aspects of international law should be used where appropriate. We will not shy away from using the tools that are at our disposal, although as the Prime Minister made clear, Zimbabwe is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, and any action on that level would therefore require a UN Security Council resolution.
	There is an EU and, I think, a US arms sales ban on Zimbabwe and we certainly seek to take that further and wider. I think that I am right in saying that the Chinese ship that tried to dock in Zimbabwe never did disperse its cargo and we hope that that remains the case—

Tobias Ellwood: Thanks to the dock workers.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman shouts out his support for the South African dock workers, and he is right to highlight their role. It emphasises the need for both Governments and civil society, including trade unions, to be active on this issue.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about President Mugabe's attendance at summits. Certainly it was gut-wrenching to see him turn up at a summit to discuss food, of all things, but it is not possible to ban him from attending the UN summit until he is no longer the President of Zimbabwe. In respect of Mugabe's legitimacy, the right hon. Gentleman raised an important point about the need, even in the first 24 hours after Mr. Tsvangirai's decision not to contest the second round, of southern African countries not to throw in their lot with Mugabe's rule. As the right hon. Gentleman said, those countries should refuse to recognise the Government as a legitimate expression of the will of the Zimbabwean people.
	I will be in South Africa in two weeks' time and I certainly propose to discuss all aspects of the crisis, including the refugees. I would have thought that it dawned on people in South Africa some time ago that, since the majority of those refugees are in South Africa, it is their problem as well as a Zimbabwean problem and that it afflicts them directly.
	In respect of the threat of further refugees, we obviously keep the issue of stockpiles of food and shelter under review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, as I said, held a meeting on that this morning. The UN presence is critical to this, and we are in touch with the UN on this issue.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the importance of the rehabilitation—I think that was what he said—of Zimbabwe afterwards. He asked how confident I was about the plans for that. I am confident that a lot of work is going into them, but I have to say to him in all candour that a country that, according to our ambassador today, has reached 8 million per cent. inflation this week is a country for which rehabilitation is hard to plan. With that caveat in mind, I assure him that although the focus is on the immediate issue we certainly have not forgotten the need to recognise not only our responsibilities but those of all wealthier countries, including those in the region, to contribute to the rehabilitation of Zimbabwe when this vile rule is over.

Mike Gapes: The first round of the presidential election was clearly won by Morgan Tsvangirai. The Movement for Democratic Change won the parliamentary elections. Given that this second round is illegitimate now that the opposition have been forced to withdraw, should we not recognise that fact and do more to help the MDC internationally as well as to help the civil society organisations and non-governmental organisations forced into exile by the Mugabe regime? Should we not do whatever we can internationally not just to de-legitimise Mugabe but to say that the real President is Morgan Tsvangirai?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, it is not just him who says that Mr. Tsvangirai won the first round. Mr. Mugabe recognises that the parliamentary majority was won by the MDC and the presidential plurality was won by Mr. Tsvangirai. That is why I have said yesterday and today that if anyone can claim democratic legitimacy it is the MDC and Mr. Tsvangirai. It is worth saying that there is a lot of talk about Governments of national unity and about people coming together, but that must be based on respecting the only decision that the Zimbabwean people have made, which was certainly not one that would put Robert Mugabe at the head of a Government.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance notice of his statement and we very much welcome what he has had to say. He is absolutely right that over the past few weeks Robert Mugabe's regime has reached new heights of brutality and disregard for the people of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is heading for total collapse. It is clear that free and fair elections would have been impossible under those circumstances, so we can all fully understand and respect the decision taken by the MDC to pull out of the election.
	Does the Foreign Secretary agree that under the UN principle of responsibility to protect, the international community now has a duty to act? Is he concerned that SADC's chairman, the President of Zambia, recently described the silence of that organisation over the elections as "scandalous"? Is the Foreign Secretary doing all he can to remind SADC countries, particularly South Africa, of the principles on which that organisation is founded, namely respect for democracy and human rights?
	In the absence of a free and fair second round of elections, the Foreign Secretary is right to say that the result of the first round must be taken to express the will of the Zimbabwean people. Does he not agree, too, that the Zimbabwean Parliament should be allowed to meet unmolested to express its will on the matter?
	The demands that we must now make are clear. The violence must stop and either the elections must be rescheduled with a massive international presence or a Government of national unity should be formed under Morgan Tsvangirai. In order to ensure that those demands are met, are the Government willing to take three further steps on a temporary basis until the regime complies? First, will they act to stop the remittances that provide the hard foreign currency that sustains the regime in power? Secondly, will they pressure the Governments of South Africa and Mozambique to be willing to restrict or cut off the supply of electricity to Zimbabwe? Thirdly, will they exceptionally allow asylum seekers from Zimbabwe to work in this country should they seek refuge here? Those are drastic steps but they would remove the only resources that now sustain this evil regime. The Government must show now that they are prepared to take such steps.

David Miliband: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his overall welcome for my statement. I certainly agree that we must do all that we can in all our roles to make sure that SADC lives up to its principles. His point about the Zimbabwean Parliament is well made; it does, of course, represent one source of strength for decent people in Zimbabwe.
	Let me address the three questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. He is not the first member of the Liberal Democrat Benches to raise the question whether we should try to stop remittances. On previous occasions in the House, I have tried to say in a diplomatic way that I think that a completely idiotic idea. I have to say again in the nicest possible way that it is very stupid indeed to keep on asking us to try to stop the remittances, because the remittances are keeping together the bodies and souls of very poor people.
	I have said in the House before that I have met people in this country who are providing care and sending money back. When they are asked about the conditions of their families, they say, "This money is the only thing that is keeping them alive." Honestly, I ask in the nicest possible way that people should stop suggesting the idea; I promise that it is a very bad idea —[Interruption.] Carry on if you want, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that I honestly do not believe that stopping the remittances would serve the ends that we share on this issue. They are providing much-needed currency not to the regime but to very poor people who need to keep body and soul together—ditto in respect of the electricity supply; living in Zimbabwe is tough enough without that being cut off.
	The right thing to say on the question of the asylum seekers is that every case must be treated seriously on a case-by-case basis. Anyone with a genuine fear of persecution—we can see the conditions under which that would exist—must, of course, be given asylum in this country.

Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a split in the leadership of the African National Congress in South Africa. While I was there a few weeks ago, President Mbeki addressed 1,500 delegates from all over the world and did not mention the word "Zimbabwe". However, the Speaker of the Parliament got up directly afterwards and said that nobody should remain silent on the issue.
	There is one voice that is respected throughout the world and ought to be heard on the issue: President Mandela's. He is in London this week celebrating his 90th birthday. Will my right hon. Friend discuss the matter with President Mandela and ask him to speak out, as I am sure he would have done had he been President now?

David Miliband: My right hon. Friend's role with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and her visit to South Africa were important. Obviously, President Mandela has a unique position in the world, never mind in Africa. I certainly would not tell him what to do. As I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, he will use whatever offices he has and can appropriately use to effect decent change in South Africa. The issue will certainly be a subject of discussion—not necessarily during the pop concert, but at some time during his visit. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that any of us would proceed with great temerity and humility in suggesting lessons that we could teach President Mandela about how he fulfils his functions.

Nicholas Soames: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House to what he attributes Mr. Mbeki's pathetically inadequate response to this terrible tragedy? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Commonwealth has put together a response formidable enough to ensure that its views are properly known?

David Miliband: In respect of the first question, I do not want to put myself into the mind of the leader of South Africa. As I said earlier, the burden borne by South Africa from the 2 million-plus refugees from Zimbabwe who are there is reason enough for any country—from self-interest, never mind moral interest—to speak out on the issue. We have debated before the role of President Mbeki in securing the rounds of the election. Obviously, however, the fact that those elections have not been able to take place in anything other than grotesque circumstances has rendered that null and void.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a very important point about the Commonwealth. Zimbabwe's absence from the Commonwealth is regretted and due entirely to how Mugabe has run the country. Mugabe has spurned the Commonwealth; I do not believe that the people of Zimbabwe have done so. I can certainly confirm to the hon. Gentleman that this week I will be in touch with the new secretary-general of the Commonwealth to see how neighbouring Commonwealth countries can use the organisation's good offices in a positive way.

Ian McCartney: On 26 March last year, I made a statement on Zimbabwe. During the past year, the only thing that has gone down is support for the regime, while murder, corruption, violence, hunger and unemployment have gone up, as well as the numbers of refugees. We still see in the international community a failure to take sufficient action together in such a way that would lead to a recognition by Mugabe of the need for a transition through democratic means to a new form of democratic government. I am certain that in the end the people of Zimbabwe will win, despite the damage done to them in the immediate future. My right hon. Friend will be involved, privately and publicly, in very complex negotiations over this. I ask him to think about a group of people in Zimbabwe that nobody speaks of—the thousands of elderly and vulnerable people who will require our support immediately Mugabe goes because they may lose their lives within hours of his regime collapsing in whatever way it does.

David Miliband: Before I made my first statement on Zimbabwe, I read my right hon. Friend's statement of last March. He raises a very important point. The whole country is vulnerable at a time of 8 million per cent. inflation, but those who are elderly and vulnerable are particularly at risk. I can assure him that they are very much in our thoughts on a consular and a more general humanitarian basis.

Andrew MacKay: The Foreign Secretary was absolutely right to remind the House that leading Ministers in Zambia, Tanzania and Angola have spoken out against Mugabe; I am sure that he would have wished to add Botswana. However, one neighbour has not—he had to omit South Africa. When he meets President Mbeki, will he point out that many friends of South Africa on both sides of the House are appalled at this inaction and that he can no longer be an honest broker between the Mugabe regime and the opposition but has to take a stance?

David Miliband: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier, he has been in touch with President Mbeki on a regular basis, including earlier today. President Mbeki's role is very important. Of course, there are other South African voices as well. I completely understand what the right hon. Gentleman says about friends of South Africa wanting them to play a positive role in change in Zimbabwe that brings stability and prosperity right across the southern African continent.

Tony Lloyd: Without underestimating the difficulties, will my right hon. Friend look at how far Britain can work with SADC and the African Union to ensure that we support the infrastructure in Zimbabwe, which will not only be necessary for delivering humanitarian aid but, in the long run, be the basis for the re-establishment of civil society? Without practical investment now, difficult though it is, and in the future, Zimbabwe will collapse even when Mugabe goes.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point. With every week and month that goes by, as Zimbabwe descends further into chaos, it is harder for it to drag itself out of that chaos or to be dragged out of it by the international community afterwards. It is a moving target, and that is making the job of planning by the international community increasingly difficult. At the World Bank and the UN, as well as in the British Government, serious thinking is going on about that country's infrastructure, to use his word, in the widest possible sense of the term—the physical and human infrastructure. After all, as many right hon. and hon. Members have said, Zimbabwe should be a rich country, not a poor country—it has the resources to be such, both human and physical. I hope that is what is keeping the people of Zimbabwe going through this dark, dark hour.

Nicholas Winterton: What happens in Zimbabwe will no doubt affect the long-term future of the whole of central southern Africa. While I express gratitude to the Minister of State, Lord Malloch-Brown, for the way in which he has co-operated with Members of this House who take a deep, long-standing interest in Zimbabwe, does he accept that the one person who could bring this catastrophe to an end is Mr. Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa? I support my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). Could we not bring greater pressure to bear on Mr. Mbeki? Even if switching off the electricity is an extreme act, the people of Zimbabwe have suffered long enough, and they would be prepared to put up with that action if it would bring down Mugabe.

David Miliband: I think that we are united throughout the House on the responsibility of regional leaders. The strong words from Angola, Botswana and Zambia, set out by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), were conspicuous in the leadership role that they have played, and they have set an example for others to follow.

Derek Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that there will be no shady deals when Mugabe goes, and that he will be brought to court wherever he may go?
	I am struggling to know the answer to this question, but would it not be possible to start an exile Government—perhaps in South Africa, given that there are 2 million to 3 million Zimbabweans there—and would he raise that point with Mbeki when he sees him in two weeks' time?

David Miliband: Certainly, the full force of international law should be felt. The important thing is that we take our lead from the people of Zimbabwe and their elected opposition representatives. It is Mr. Tsvangirai whose lead we should follow and it is premature for us to start proposing an exile Government—it must be for us to follow and support his lead. He is the man at the sharp end, and he is the one who, in the end, will have to provide leadership to find a way out of this morass.

Gerald Howarth: Many people find it morally repugnant that the international community has fiddled so ineffectively as Zimbabwe has literally burned. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House how many British subjects there are in Zimbabwe, and what sort of plans are in place in the event of civil war, which many correspondents are now suggesting might happen? What contingency plans are there to remove those British citizens to safety? I say to the Foreign Secretary that the Almighty is not the only person who could remove Mr. Mugabe; the Special Air Service could also do a pretty good job.

David Miliband: Whatever the degree of frustration that the hon. Gentleman feels, I do not think that he really wants me to pursue the latter part of his question.
	The best thing to say about British nationals is to refer back to my earlier statement on the issue, which recorded that there are 12,000 British nationals in Zimbabwe, many of whom are elderly, and there is no evidence of them being subject to intimidation or attack thus far. They are supported by a well-developed wardens network, and by some very brave non-governmental organisations. The best thing to say is that they remain the subject of continued engagement, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to have a word with me afterwards, I could say a bit more to him about that.

Kate Hoey: May I urge Her Majesty's Government to stop being quite so nice to President Mbeki of South Africa? Anyone listening to his remarks last night would wonder whether he was on the same planet as many of us. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider withdrawing Mbeki's invitation to the next G8 summit—he attended the Gleneagles summit on the understanding that he was going to be the person in Africa speaking up for good governance and human rights. He has not honoured his side of the bargain; should we not be looking at our side?

David Miliband: Of all right hon. and hon. Members in the House, my hon. Friend has played a long-term role in standing up for decent values in Zimbabwe. The extension of an invitation to the G8 is to South Africa, not an individual, and it is important that we expand the G8 to include countries such as South Africa. It is also important that we engage with such countries. We should speak plainly of our own views, but we should engage with those countries, and whatever the levels of frustration, the worst signal to send would be that the leading industrialised countries had lost interest in talking to, in this case, those countries' democratically elected leaders. Although I totally understand my hon. Friend's frustration, I hope that she agrees, on reflection, that engagement on a clear basis is the preferable way forward.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman said that the full force of international law should be felt. Does that mean to say that as a matter of principle he accepts that the International Criminal Court should have jurisdiction over what is going on in Zimbabwe? If that is his position, and it is mine, will he start taking action within the Security Council to mobilise support for a resolution that would subject Mr. Mugabe and his immediate supporters to the full rigour of the International Criminal Court?

David Miliband: When I said "the full force of international law" earlier, I did not say it lightly but because I believe it. However, we have been trying to mobilise support to get Zimbabwe on to the Security Council agenda. That has been the blockage, and I would fail in my duty if I pretended to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we were at a stage yet when we could start mobilising support for something greater than a standing item on the agenda. However, I assure him that, from my two conversations with our permanent representative at the UN yesterday and previous conversations, there is no lack of clarity on the part of all members of the Security Council about the importance of the issue. Its discussion last week and the fact that Burkina Faso became the ninth country to support its debate at the Security Council is significant. I hope that we can build on that—it is certainly our priority.

Chris Mullin: May I press my right hon. Friend on the suggestion that the European Union should extend travel and financial sanctions to the families of those who are subject to them? During my time at the Foreign Office, we took the view that the sins of the fathers should not be visited on the children but, given the enormity of what is occurring, perhaps the time has come to revisit the issue.

David Miliband: The 131 people who are currently subject to a travel ban have been carefully chosen. It is right to consider all options for further travel bans or financial intervention. Although we recognise that there is a pull in both directions, it is right to examine all the options without fear or favour.

Angus Robertson: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance notice of his statement. We are all appalled by the situation in Zimbabwe. Does not he agree that it would be the making of the African Union and SADC if they could sort out the situation so that democracy, the rule of law and human rights were secured in this new era for Africans by African diplomatic efforts?

David Miliband: Yes.

Ann Cryer: What sort of reports is my right hon. Friend getting from Zimbabwe about the—I will not say ordinary lives—the lives of ordinary people there? Are there still schools and hospitals? Is any form of local government functioning? Were the Almighty to remove the leader, how long would it take, in my right hon. Friend's opinion, for Zimbabwe to get back to normal life?

David Miliband: I ask and inquire about the position of ordinary Zimbabweans, not least because some of them work for us. I have spoken to some of our locally engaged staff, who are Zimbabwean citizens and do an outstanding job for the British Government. They are lucky enough to have a steady salary. I specifically asked our ambassador today about teachers and schools. Teachers, civil servants and the army are still being paid, but, with 8 million per cent. inflation, it is a struggle for pay to keep up with it. Although it is important not to become bewitched by the regime's economics, they point to its demise rather than its good health. I do not want to make predictions about how fast things can be turned around, but it is amazing how fast a descent into chaos can be stopped, with decent leadership.

Tony Baldry: The prosecution of Charles Taylor by the United Nations special court has clearly created the precedent that not even a Head of State is immune from prosecution under international law for crimes against humanity. Following the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), is not it right to try to put the matter on the Security Council's agenda and ascertain who has the temerity to vote down the principle that international law should apply everywhere? There is nothing to stop the ICC, if so mandated, interviewing Zimbabwean witnesses, who are now refugees in South Africa and, if the evidence supports it, bringing indictments against those who are most responsible for crimes against humanity in Zimbabwe. Giving possible failure as a reason for not doing that sounds rather weak.

David Miliband: I have not heard anyone say that because we might fail, we should not do that. What I have heard people say is that the short-term priorities are to stop the violence, get the humanitarian aid in and create a negotiated process that recognises the democratic will of the Zimbabwean people. There is also a short-term need for the UN to play its proper role. However, the point that I made earlier was that Zimbabwe is not yet a standing item on the UN Security Council agenda, because that is being blocked. The first focus of our activities must therefore be to get it discussed, to get a strong presidential statement and to ensure that the envoy continues to play his role, currently in Pretoria, but with the potential to return to Harare and elsewhere in Zimbabwe. There is a longer-term game, but the short-term game really matters.

Clive Efford: I take my right hon. Friend's point about the issue not even being before the UN Security Council and the difficulties that can be created by calling for legal action to be taken against people before an agreement is reached. However, there is a precedent for taking individual action. For instance, the British Government took action on Bosnia before there was international agreement. I heard what Lord Malloch-Brown said about taking action against individuals who support the regime around Robert Mugabe to prevent them from moving and about freezing their assets. Is there any possibility of the Government taking action of that kind, to send those people around Robert Mugabe the strong message that after the situation is over, they will still face action?

David Miliband: The issue of EU sanctions on travel or finance, which I think is what Lord Malloch-Brown was talking about, is rightly on the agenda and is part of the drive. As I said earlier, 131 individuals are currently subject to those sanctions. We should seek to have that extended. What has happened in Zimbabwe has brought home to many people in the European Union the severity of the situation, and that is certainly something that we will be pursuing.

Henry Bellingham: The Foreign Secretary said a moment ago that Zimbabwe needed broad-based Government. Could he elaborate on that? As the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), said earlier, the MDC won the parliamentary elections, in spite of the vote rigging and the violence. Morgan Tsvangirai would obviously have won an overwhelming victory in the presidential election, had it been free and fair. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be a disgrace if Mugabe's ZANU-PF party was rewarded for its role in the violence with any position in a future Government?

David Miliband: The issue at hand is the leadership of a new Government. Some of the descriptions of a Government of national unity—one who would perpetuate Mugabe's rule—do not meet my test or any other hon. Member's test of what constitutes a broad-based Government. However, Morgan Tsvangirai himself has made it clear that he does not seek to replace one one-party rule with another one-party rule, but is seeking support from across parties. ZANU-PF splintered, in a way that led to Mr. Makoni running in the first round of the presidential election and securing 8 per cent. of the vote. There is room for a wide range of possibilities, but not one that starts from the presumption that the current Head of State remains as the leader of the Government there, because that is the red line.

Jeff Ennis: I understand that it has just been announced that Morgan Tsvangirai has had to seek sanctuary in the Dutch embassy in Harare. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that development? The Australian Government, among others, are also calling for greater sanctions against Zimbabwe, but does he agree that such a measure would simply penalise ordinary Zimbabwean citizens even further?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point, but one so important that it is better if I do not comment in detail on the reports that are circulating about the whereabouts of Mr. Tsvangirai. The important thing that I can confirm is that he is safe and believes himself to be secure, but that is as far as I should go. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that sanctions that ended up hitting ordinary Zimbabweans would be a perverse reward for what they have been through.

Philip Hollobone: In this Olympic year, is there more that can be done to embarrass the Chinese Government, who are the financial prop that is keeping the Mugabe regime going?

David Miliband: In my experience, setting out to embarrass the Chinese Government is not the most effective way of getting them to do things that we want. I have, however, discussed Zimbabwe on previous occasions with the Chinese Foreign Minister. The weight of world opinion will register and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier, Chinese support for the actions in the UN today is one indication of how world opinion is shifting.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the Foreign Secretary elaborate on the Prime Minister's comment that there would be substantial support from the UK in a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe, bearing in mind the pressures that are already being placed on our helicopter fleet? Does he also agree that it is time to call for Zimbabwe to be suspended from the African Union? May I encourage him to go for his Adlai Stevenson moment, and to go to the UN, with some evidence, to say that the talking should stop and we need to see some action, with the rest of the world coming up behind us?

David Miliband: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks that Adlai Stevenson is the way forward, rather than Mr. Khrushchev and his shoe. In respect of post-Mugabe reconstruction, the issue is less about military reconstruction and more about development reconstruction of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), who is no longer in his place, mentioned earlier. Economic and social reconstruction, rather than military reconstruction, is what is needed. The issue of Zimbabwe is discussed at the UN, and was discussed in the debate on post-conflict reconstruction that I chaired in New York last month. We are determined to play our part, but recognise that this is a multilateral issue, not just a bilateral one. The more that it is recognised as such, the better.

sale of student loans bill (programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Sale of Student Loans Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 22nd November 2007 (Sale of Student Loans Bill (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages 
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. —[ Mr. Michael Foster .]
	 Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Sale of Student Loans Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 15. If the House agrees to these amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the  Journal.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Sale of student loans

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Bill Rammell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 6, 8 and amendment (a) thereto, 9 and 10.

Bill Rammell: Before I start on the detail of the amendments, I should like to place on record my appreciation of the constructive way in which hon. Members have contributed to the development of the Bill. Opposition Members will recognise among the amendments topics that we first discussed in this House, on which further debate followed in another place. The positive engagement across all parties in both Houses, but particularly between the two Front Benches, has helped fundamentally to improve the Bill, which meets our shared aim of providing an effective framework for a continuing programme of loan sales and offering full protection for borrowers.

John Hayes: May I take this opportunity, even though it is very early in the Minister's speech, to pay him the compliment of saying that he has dealt with these matters with great professionalism? I am grateful for his kind remarks, but they are also due vice-versa. I entirely endorse his view that the Bill has been improved by that engagement.

Bill Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman. One can always sense when constructive engagement has taken place because the Back Benches are empty on both sides of the House, which is what we see today.
	I should like to proceed by commenting on the first group of Lords amendments, which relates to the effect of the sale on borrowers. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 4 cover the notification of sales to borrowers and, as I underlined in Committee, we have always intended to let borrowers know when their loan has been sold. Having listened to the arguments, we have strengthened that intention—in Lords amendment No. 1—into an obligation for the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to let all affected borrowers know within three months that their loan has been sold.
	Lords amendment No. 4 would mean that, in the unlikely event of an onward sale of the legal title to the loans, the initial loan purchaser would be obliged to take reasonable steps to let the borrower know that their loan had been sold on. Lords amendment No. 5 also relates to onward sales. As I said in earlier stages of these proceedings, the borrower's primary protection in the sales programme lies in the fact that purchasers cannot change the repayment terms, which remain governed by regulations. That is an important protection, but we want the added safeguard that the Secretary of State can enforce any protections contained in the sales contract, including after any onward sale, however unlikely that might be.
	The Bill has from the outset enabled the Secretary of State to insist on being a party in some form or other to onward transfers. Having listened to the arguments put by hon. Members here and in the other place, we have made it a requirement in amendment No. 5 for the Secretary of State to ensure in the initial sales contract that he is party to any subsequent contract transferring legal title to the loans.
	Amendment No. 6 clarifies how the Bill addresses onward sales, putting it beyond doubt that the provisions of clause 3 relate only to the transfer of legal title of the loans. Without that clarification, potential purchasers and investors may be deterred from participating in loan sales in the mistaken belief that the Secretary of State will need to be a party to all transfers and the onward transfer of equitable rights that can take place in the context of a securitisation. That has never been our intention. Seeking to regulate this division of equitable interests would be unnecessary and unworkable, given the complexity of the structures. Only the legal owner has a relationship with the borrower and the student finance system as servicer, so the Secretary of State only needs to be able to regulate the legal owner's dealings with the loans.
	Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 will mean that, when making or amending the loan regulations or regulations under section 186 of the Education Act 2002, the Secretary of State must seek to ensure that borrowers will not as a consequence of the amendments be in a worse position simply because their loan has been sold. This provision will apply to all changes in regulations after any loans have been sold, not just where an undertaking may have been made. That represents a strengthening of the statement already made on the record that borrowers will not be adversely affected by their loan being sold. It will, I believe, give borrowers confidence that the commitment is intended to stand the test of time.
	Finally, amendment No. 10 is a minor drafting improvement, expanding a cross-reference in clause 5(4) into a reference to the whole of clause 2 rather than just clause 2(2). That will indicate more clearly that the transfer arrangements in general may provide for exceptions to the presumption that all moneys relating to sold loans should be paid to the purchaser. Such an exemption could cover, for example, penalties relating to compliance with the tax system.
	I am also aware of the Opposition amendment to Lords amendment No. 8, tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). I know that the Opposition wish to speak to that amendment, so I will respond to what is said about that later.
	Overall, the amendments in the group represent valuable strengthening and clarification of how we will ensure that the borrowers' interests in the loan sale programme are protected. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.

Robert Wilson: It seems quite a long time ago that we were last here debating this Bill. In fact, it was last January. It was such a long time ago that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has advanced another year—in fact, he does so today, so I hope that everyone will join me in wishing him a very happy birthday.
	The long time for which the Bill has been in the other place seems to have been extremely well spent, as it appears that there is much for us to agree on today. I think that we can largely welcome what is before us, although, as would be expected of a diligent Opposition, we will wish to explore a few issues in further detail. I hope that I will not detain you for too long, Mr. Deputy Speaker; after all, lengthy periods of detention are Government policy, not Opposition policy, are they not?
	Let me deal first with Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 4 together. They were proposed in response to another amendment tabled in the other place by Baroness Sharp. In moving Government amendment No. 1, Baroness Morgan said that it had
	"always been our clear intention to let borrowers know when their loans are sold. Having reflected on the argument that it would be better to strengthen that intention into an obligation, we propose Amendment No. 1. The Secretary of State would have to take reasonable steps to let all affected borrowers know that their loans have been sold within three months of the transaction."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2008; Vol. 707, c. 47.]
	Conservative Members have raised these matters on several occasions, so it would be extremely churlish of us not to welcome these amendments. They build the Government's intention to inform borrowers directly into the Bill, exactly where it should be, and they also give the purchasers of the loan an obligation to do the same. Letting those affected by changes know within three months is appropriate and welcome. However, it would be extremely helpful if the Minister clarified what will constitute "reasonable steps" in those circumstances, both for the Government and indeed for the loan purchasers.
	As the explanatory notes state, amendment No. 5
	"would oblige the Secretary of State to ensure that initial sale contracts contain provision for the Secretary of State to be party to any onward sale contract."
	Conservative Members particularly welcome that concession by the Government. The Minister will acknowledge that it follows considerable pressure from us, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who referred to those matters in his opening remarks. Following debate on Second Reading and in Committee about onward sales, Conservative Members tabled an amendment on Report that would have ensured that the Secretary of State would indeed have to be party to onward sales. A similar amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
	As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said during the debate back in January:
	"There are legitimate concerns about collateralised debt...History has taught us that loans can easily be repackaged and, in the end, involve a large number of different purchasers, some of whom, if they are known at all, could be outside the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State."
	The logic of such wisdom from my hon. Friend was so powerful that obviously the Minister could not resist.
	Although the Minister expressed the need for flexibility in those matters, he conceded that if an amendment tabled in the other place could be worded in such a way as to ensure that the Secretary of State was party to any onward sale, while maintaining flexibility as to the specific mechanism,
	"we would certainly consider it." ."—[ Official Report, 23 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1558, 1570.]
	The Minister has been as good as his word and has confirmed that today, so we are satisfied that this is an appropriate concession that fulfils our expectations.
	The explanatory notes make it clear, as the Minister did in his opening remarks, that amendment No. 6 is essentially a technical measure. I therefore do not propose to dwell on it and shall move directly to amendment No. 8. I will also speak to amendment No. 9, and to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings.
	Let me be frank: our amendment is probing and it aims to tease out a little more reassurance from the Minister. We would like further explanation on the record about how those loans might end up in circumstances in which a particular loan structure changed. The explanatory notes state:
	"Lords Amendments 8 and 9 would require the Secretary of State to give consideration to borrowers whose loans have been sold in making or amending loan regulations, and in making or amending regulations under section 186 of the Education Act 2002, so as to"—
	this is the important bit—
	"avoid detriment to any such borrower resulting solely from the fact that the loan is sold."
	Essentially, the Secretary of State must make a comparison to ascertain whether a borrower is worse off as a result of any proposed amendment to regulations. That must be compared with no change at all—that is, with what would have been the situation if the loan had never been sold.
	Lords amendment No. 8 is specifically concerned with the financial impact on borrowers, about which Conservative Members have expressed unease during previous debates. The Minister said on the record, early on in the process of considering the Bill, that the Government
	"want to be able to demonstrate, and for the reality to be, that a graduate repaying their loan finance will see not one iota of difference in the way in which that process is handled, whether their debt is owned by the Government or by the private sector." ——[Official Report, Sale of Student Loans Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2007; c. 14, Q33.]
	Conservative Members—and those with loans, watching avidly on BBC Parliament— will welcome that statement, which is to be commended.
	However, Lords amendment No. 8 was tabled in response to concerns that Lords amendment No. 2 to clause 2 might leave borrowers worse off. In moving the amendment in the Lords, Baroness Morgan stated:
	"No borrower will be in a worse position for their loan having been sold and, in developing the amendment on undertakings, we have reflected on the importance of borrowers being fully reassured on that fact. That is why Amendment No. 6"—
	as it was numbered in the other place—
	"will mean that, when amending the regulations, the Secretary of State must seek to ensure that borrowers will not be in a worse position as a consequence of their loan being sold."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2008; Vol. 702, c. 54.]
	We welcome the amendment and the noble Baroness's comments, but we have some concerns about the effectiveness of her assurance, and that of the Minister, to borrowers.
	In particular, we are concerned about the wording of the amendment, which does not appear to be as strong as it could be. Our amendment would give further certainty by leaving out the words "aim to". We are uncertain what the Secretary of State would achieve by "aiming to" ensure that no borrower whose loan was transferred would be in a worse position. I would appreciate some clarification from the Minister on what exactly is meant by "aim to". Would it, for example, be possible under the amendment for borrowers to be objectively worse off, so long as the Secretary of State had aimed to prevent that? Having read the certainty in the Minister's words, and in those of the noble Baroness in the other place, I notice that Lords amendment No. 8 does not give the same level of reassurance and commitment. Why not? Will the Minister explain fully to the House why that was not possible?
	I am also keen to learn the legal status of the current wording. What has the Minister been advised about the steps that would have to be taken to ensure that he had fulfilled his duty under the amendment? What advice has he been given about the possible legal interpretation of the amendment if a transfer were subject to judicial review? By removing the words "aim to", our amendment would give a copper-bottomed guarantee to borrowers that they would not be worse off as a result of their loan being transferred.
	Our main concern is for those who hold loans. We want to ensure that the exercise has no detrimental impact on them whatever. I urge the Minister to consider our amendment carefully and to fulfil his and the wider Government's earlier reassurances to the House.
	Finally, on amendment No. 10 to clause 5, the Government have conceded that the original wording in the Bill was not as clear as it should have been. As Baroness Morgan stated in her letter to Baroness Verma, dated 4 April, the amendment clarifies what the Government had always originally intended, and is "a minor drafting change". That implies that the matter does not need much debate. But will the Minister put it on record that the provision is what the Government always intended, and that it is indeed "a minor drafting change"?
	As the Minister has agreed, there is no doubt that the Bill has been much improved by Her Majesty's Opposition's thorough inspection and the Lords amendments. Therefore, I thank the Minister and his colleagues for the professional and constructive way in which they have engaged with us.

Stephen Williams: May I associate myself with the outbreak of friendly relations between the Government and Conservative Front Benches? All our debates on Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills matters, whether on this Bill, in Question Time or on the speaking circuit outside the Chamber, are conducted in a friendly and well-informed manner.
	I welcome Lords amendment No. 1, which was tabled in response to an amendment moved by my colleague Baroness Sharp of Guildford in another place, calling for the borrowers to be included among those who are notified of the change of circumstances and the accompanying information, about which the House will be informed, once a sale has taken place, and for that notification to take place within three months.
	Lords amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 concern further transfers and onward sales, and stipulate that the Secretary of State should be a party to them to ensure that the Treasury's interests are safeguarded. They also clarify the fact that the onward sales are of the legal title rather than equitable interest resulting from, for instance, securitisation.
	Let me raise again an issue that was raised by me and by others back in January, on Report. I assume that in all these cases the agency that will issue the various notifications on behalf of the Secretary of State will be the Student Loans Company. I do not think we want the borrower to receive multiple notifications about different aspects of his or her accumulated debt from different agencies such as the purchaser of the debt, the Department, the Student Loans Company and, indeed, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. I should welcome the Minister's comments on how it can be made clear to borrowers what has happened to their loans on graduation.

John Hayes: An audit trail will be necessary. The position could become quite convoluted over time as debts are sold and resold. Good records are important, not just for the borrower but for everyone.

Stephen Williams: I agree that it is important to have accurate records—and also for them not to be lost by anyone. However, we do not want a large number of agencies to have to keep accurate records of the addresses, income and circumstances of borrowers. Once young people graduate and their incomes start rising, they tend to move about a good deal. Certainly that was my experience after I graduated. Retaining the Student Loans Company as the primary agency to continue the relationship with the borrower seems to me to make good sense.
	As for Lords amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10, I was puzzled by the insertion of the phrase "aim to" by the Government, or their draftsmen, in the clause that deals with ensuring that the borrower is not put in an adverse position once his or her debt has been sold on. I am sure that such clauses are always carefully drafted on the basis of good advice from Treasury or other Government draftsmen. No doubt there is a good reason for the Government to "aim to ensure" that graduates are not put in an adverse financial position, rather than to ensure that they are not.
	That leads me to wonder how the sales of the debts are selected. I had thought that there would be blocks of debt rather than individual debts. Might not the debt being sold turn out to be that of graduates with a good record of repayments rather than those with a patchier record? I do not think we want to find ourselves in a Northern Rock-like position in which the good debt is privatised and the no-so-good debt remains on the Government's books.

John Hayes: I suspect that that is exactly what will happen. The debts of those with a secure record of repayment will be by far the most appropriate to sell first, because they will be the most attractive.

Stephen Williams: I am glad we agree on that.
	The insertion of the phrase "aim to" suggests that the Government cannot be sure that they can determine whether borrowers will be adversely affected by either the sale of their individual debt or their inclusion in a block of debt that has been sold. It implies that they cannot be too precise about the conditions. I think that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was right to probe the intention of the insertion of the words "aim to", and I look forward to hearing the Minister's justification of it.

Bill Rammell: We have had a constructive debate. First, let me confirm that the proposition in Lords amendment No. 10 was always the Government's intention, and that this is a minor drafting amendment. We have throughout the passage of the Bill also made clear our current intention that the Student Loans Company will take on the responsibility of the ongoing relationship with the borrower, and that it will take the "reasonable steps" to inform all affected borrowers on behalf of the Secretary of State. On the point about the importance of clarity in that relationship, and the need not to create a multiple set of relationships, we need to be clear that the SLC will carry out that function, and that we do not expect onward sales to take place. Under amendment No. 4, there is the further proposition that the initial loan purchaser will also be obliged to "take reasonable steps" to let borrowers know that their loan has been sold. That is there as a belt-and-braces response, but I do not envisage that way forward as ever being necessary.
	The hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) asked what is meant by taking "reasonable steps". We would expect a letter to be written to each affected borrower at the current address held by the SLC. That is an appropriate response because, importantly, borrowers are under an obligation to keep the SLC informed of their up-to-date address—a fact that is relevant to a point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams).

Stephen Williams: What is the Minister's assessment of the current state of the SLC database? For how many borrowers is it sure that it holds an accurate and up-to-date address?

Bill Rammell: I cannot give an off-the-cuff response, but the hon. Gentleman has asked me several written parliamentary questions on this subject, and if he looks at the record he will see that we are getting substantial income flows to the SLC, and we would not be doing so unless we had a good set of addresses for graduates who have gone through the system. I hope that reassures him.

Robert Wilson: I seek the reassurance that there will be no cross-checking of graduates' addresses through Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.

Bill Rammell: There are very clear arrangements for the transfer of data between the SLC and HMRC, which I set out in detail in Committee; significant reassurance was given on that issue then, and I reiterate it here.
	Let me now turn to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) to Lords amendment No. 8. As I have said, throughout the passage of the Bill it has been a key Government commitment that the borrower will not be disadvantaged as a result of any sale. It must be appreciated that we are dealing with a complex and technical regime that interacts with the tax system, and where there are a large number of moving parts there may occasionally be unintended consequences, which we would, of course, seek to rectify as soon as we became aware of them. Given that set of circumstances, it would be wrong to render changes unlawful because of a possible minor or technical infringement that it had been impossible to predict. I want to stress that amendment No. 8 does not give Ministers scope to weaken their commitment to the borrower. Under the duty it puts in place, no Minister could knowingly make an amendment to the regulations to the detriment of a borrower whose loan had been sold.

John Redwood: Is the Minister saying that there will be compensation from Government funds if the borrower is inadvertently worse off?

Bill Rammell: If there is a technical infringement that puts the borrower in a worse position, the Government will have to respond; in those circumstances, they will have to make clear their commitment to borrowers. However, the key point is that under the duty this amendment puts in place, no Minister could knowingly amend the regulations to the detriment of a borrower whose loan had been sold.
	Let me now turn to the purpose of the wording.

John Hayes: I shall intervene before the hon. Gentleman moves on, as he might want to amend what he is about to say. It seems to me that the argument he is developing is that the obligation will be to ensure that the Government's intent was appropriate. What we are concerned about is the outcome. The intent might well be appropriate but if the outcome was detrimental to borrowers, the Government's intentions would not be of much comfort, would they?

Bill Rammell: In those circumstances, the Government would have to respond very quickly and put that right. In dealing with this amendment, I asked officials to envisage for me the circumstances that might pertain in such a situation. We find it very difficult to envisage such a situation and to identify the problems that might occur. However, this is a belt-and-braces response that makes it clear that there would be a responsibility on the Government, in those unforeseen circumstances, to put the situation right, but the purpose of the wording is simply to ensure that if any unintended consequence of an amendment to regulations had such an effect, the repayment regime would remain lawful pending correction of the unintended error, which would clearly be a responsibility for Government. Otherwise, there is a risk of potentially important aspects of the intended and proper repayment regime being rendered unlawful because of minor errors. That would not be in anyone's interests.
	Although the Government's commitment to the borrower is clear, in this context, we consider the proposed amendment to the amendment to be too inflexible to work. Having listened to the concerns expressed, and responded on the parliamentary record to them, I now hope that the Opposition will not press their amendment.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Sales: supplemental

Lords amendment: No. 2.

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 3, Lords amendment No. 7, amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 16.

John Hayes: Perhaps I might start by again echoing the spirit evoked by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams), who leads for the Liberal Democrats, and indeed by the Minister: a determination to ensure that the Bill does what it is supposed to, but, equally, to proceed in a spirit of co-operation wherever possible. I will not say collaboration, but there certainly should be co-operation—and to that end, both in this place and the other place, the official Opposition have done their best to improve the Bill.
	It is in that spirit that I speak to the amendment that stands in my name, and that represents the Opposition's position on Lords amendment No. 2, which was introduced by the Government. It was a significant addition to the Bill and is therefore worthy of detailed scrutiny here. By its nature, it has not been discussed here until now, and I think we might say unusually so. Although it is of course the Government's privilege—indeed right—to move amendments in the Lords, to do so in such a fundamental way is unusual; I say no more than that.
	The amendment that we are seeking to amend is about transfer arrangements, particularly undertakings by the Secretary of State about the power to make loan regulations. As you will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the amendment goes into some particulars, although I will not discuss them exhaustively. Our amendment is designed to leave out paragraph (a) of the Government amendment that speeds its way here from the Lords, because the powers granted by that amendment are very permissive and wide-ranging. I shall detail the explanatory notes, if I might, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is important:
	"Lords Amendment 2 would enable the Secretary of State to include in the sales contract with a purchaser undertakings about the exercise of the power to make loan regulations (which include terms and conditions of student loans). Such amendments to the loan regulations would have effect in relation to sold and unsold loans. The intention of the amendment is to reduce the uncertainty about changes which the Secretary of State could make to the terms and conditions of the loans."
	The question of certainty—to whom, and about what—is of great importance when considering the amendment, which has already been subject to considerable debate in the Lords. Members present will have read with some care the record of that debate, but what they may not have been privy to is some of the correspondence surrounding this matter. In a letter to Baroness Vermer dated 4 April, Baroness Morgan, who leads for the Government in the Lords on these matters, indicated that the amendment was principally about value for money. Following discussions with the Government's adviser on the loan book sale, Deutsche Bank, she argues that it has become necessary for the Government to think again about the precise nature of the likely sale and its circumstances. She says in the letter:
	"Because we are legislating for a long-term programme of sales"—
	the Minister, indeed all the Government Front Benchers, have made it clear that this is enabling legislation, and we understand that these sales may take place over a considerable period—
	"and want to ensure sales achieve good value for money we think we ought to have at our disposal more than one way in which investors can be given confidence that a change in the terms and conditions of repaying the loans will not affect the value of the asset they have bought."
	Let me put that into rather clearer terms for the benefit of the House and, indeed, the record. The gist of it is this. If potential purchasers of part of the loan book were able to suggest that they were buying an unquantified risk, they might well drive the price down, and they might do so in circumstances in which they felt that the Secretary of State could change the loan terms, even though they had bought the product. It is perfectly acceptable for the Government to say, following advice, that that would make the whole process untenable, and that a potential purchaser would—if I may put it in the terms sometimes used in these circumstances—have the Government's hand twisted up behind their collective back. No salesman wants to be in that situation, and in these terms the Minister is indeed the salesman for the Government, trying to sell the loan book at the best possible price. That is certainly in the interest of taxpayers.
	However, having made the judgment that that was perfectly arguable and would justify the kind of amendment that the Government have tabled, Ministers indicated in subsequent discussions in the Lords that the reason for their amendment was rather different. They actually indicated that the amendment concerns the uncertain status of the loan book after sale and whether it would be counted as sold by the Office for National Statistics. In other words, on the one hand we were being told that this is a necessary change to facilitate the best commercial relationship with potential purchasers—to secure the best deal, if I might put it that way—and on the other, we were being told that it is a technical requirement to ensure that the asset had been shifted, so far as the ONS was concerned, from the public to the private sector. In the Lords Committee debate, Baroness Morgan stated:
	"We do not want to put future Governments in a position where the only means they have to address the issue of future policy change became something that, under future rules, led to the transaction not counting as a true sale. We know that this is a real risk, as the classification rules have changed significantly since the previous sales of student loans a decade ago and we would not now be able to sell student loans in the way we did then."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2008; Vol. 701, c. 192.]
	So I think it fair to say that there is some confusion about the advice that Ministers received from the sales arranger, their adviser Deutsche Bank. Did that advice also concern whether a transaction would count as a true sale or was there separate advice from a separate source that sponsored—encouraged—the Government to construct and propose their amendment? Was the advice only about value for money, an issue to which I shall return in relation to Lords amendment No. 7?
	The fact that the sales arranger thought it possible that the terms of the sale needed to be revised raises some questions, particularly in the current financial climate, about whether a good value deal can be secured, especially for the first sale. The essence of my point is to discover which is the more important to the Government: is it, as we have now been led to understand, the technical change that they claim that they have to make to satisfy the ONS—that position is perfectly feasible and supportable—or is it, as we were first led to believe, that the Government fear that they will not be able to sell the loan book, in part or as a whole, at an attractive price unless they make the product altogether more agreeable from the perspective of potential purchasers? If that is the reason driving the Government, the spectre—I do not want to be alarmist in any way, because that is not in my character—of the loan book being sold off at a price that would not be in taxpayers' interests, at a time that would not be optimal and in a fashion that would not be agreeable to this House or to those whom we represent begins to hover over our otherwise agreeable proceedings.
	That explains the reason for our amendment (a). Discussions have taken place on the Floor of the House, in Committee, in the Lords and privately about these matters, but we felt it important to put our concerns on the record in the form of our amendment. Concern was expressed in the Lords about the permissive nature of the Government's amendment, and I have made reference to that. Our amendment (a) would enable the Minister to give undertakings that are enforceable in law and that bind the hands of his successors. It would enable Ministers not only to give undertakings that the loan regulations will not be changed, but to give undertakings so as to achieve a specific result. Our amendment (a) proposes to remove paragraph (a) from Lord amendment No. 2, but it is essentially a probing amendment, which doubtless comes as a relief to Ministers. It aims to ascertain what undertakings may be made by Ministers in this regard. Could the undertakings have an impact on the threshold for loan repayments or the interest rate for repayments?
	My principal concern is, as it has been throughout these proceedings, not only for recipients of student loans, but for taxpayers. We must ensure that we secure best value for money as this asset moves from the public to the private sector.

John Redwood: rose—

John Hayes: I am happy to give way to my right hon. Friend, who is a great authority on these things.

John Redwood: There are two ways of securing a more attractive selling price. The first is legitimate: the Government should say that they are not going to intervene in an unhelpful way and give as much certainty as possible to the potential purchasers. I think that that is what they are trying to do, and I am interested in hearing my hon. Friend develop the argument. What would be unacceptable to this House is if the other way were adopted. That would involve allowing the buyers to up the amount of money that they take off the students. The Government are desperately trying to balance those matters, so I would be intrigued to learn whether my hon. Friend has had the benefit of any advice from those acting for the potential vendor as to how one maximises the price within those constraints.

John Hayes: The tension between those two imperatives lies at the heart of the matter. I do not wish to complicate our considerations, but may I also add a third: that the Government are obliged to deal with these things rather more hurriedly than they or the House would wish? They have made it clear—Ministers have been straightforward about this—that they need to sell the loan book pretty quickly, because they factored income from that sale into their spending plans.
	My right hon. Friend will know, given his extensive business and City experience, that it is not always wise to sell something at an inappropriate time and it is not always—perhaps never—wise to let potential purchasers know that one is going to do so. That drives the price down, because they then say that the Government have to sell, because if they do not, they will be short of brass. That is what this boils down to. We have a fear about the Lords amendment, so our probing amendment— I reassure the Minister about its nature—aims to ensure that he has the opportunity to clarify, on the record, the nature of the sale that will doubtless ensue as a result of this enabling legislation. My right hon. Friend is right to say that the interests of borrowers and taxpayers have been at the heart of our considerations. We would complain bitterly if, after this period of friendly co-operation, the Government used this legislation at the wrong time and got a lousy deal. If we did not complain in such circumstances, we would not be doing our duty to this House or to taxpayers.
	There is a danger that the Government's Lords amendment will transfer any uncertainty about future repayment terms from potential purchasers of the loan book to borrowers. That would not be a satisfactory outcome. The additional permissiveness at the heart of the amendment may be warranted, but at the very least, we need to know what the Government are thinking, why they are thinking it and who has advised them. I know that the Minister will be anxious to clarify his and the Government's position at the earliest opportunity.
	On Lords amendment No. 3, I should point out that the explanatory notes state:
	"Lords Amendment 3 would ensure that the scope of undertakings given by the Secretary of State could extend to regulations under section 186 of the Education Act 2002, as well as to the loan regulations under section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. Under section 186 of the 2002 Act, the Secretary of State may make regulations enabling the Secretary of State to make repayments on behalf of borrowers, or to reduce or extinguish the amounts owing by them. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make binding promises about how this power would or not be exercised."
	Lords amendment No. 7 would insert a new clause into the Bill. I ought to say at this juncture that I am extremely grateful to the Minister for accepting the representations made to him on this subject. The new clause deals with the kind of reporting that would take place after transfer arrangements have occurred. In essence, the Government are saying that parliamentary scrutiny, which we all want in place, will be ensured by a report, brought to this House, on the arrangements pertaining to the sale. The amendment states:
	"The report must include information about the extent to which the arrangements give good value"
	—for money.
	We have been so insistent about this matter for the reason that I mentioned a few moments ago in response to the intervention made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood): the fact that it is crucial that we obtain good value for money and, moreover, that this House is able to test that in an empirical way. The House deserves proper information about where a sale was made, how it was made, why it was made at a particular time, the prevailing market conditions and so on.

John Redwood: Has my hon. Friend put it to the Minister that selling a book of loans in the middle of a credit crunch is not the normal way to maximise value for the taxpayer? Doing it at the same time as running off a mortgage book at Northern Rock, which the Government strangely decided to buy, is doubly hazardous.

John Hayes: My right hon. Friend's lucidity is matched only by his assiduity. He makes his point with a force that I would be reluctant to use. I mentioned the possibility of inappropriate sales at an inappropriate time, but as ever he draws the issue into sharp focus. It is entirely possible that the Government might be forced to sell part of the loan book at the least desirable time, in the circumstances that he describes. That would be scandalous, because the loan book is an important public asset. It is right that we should consider selling it—that has been Conservative policy for some years—and we welcome the spirit that lies behind the Bill, but the devil is in the detail. We need to get the terms and conditions right, as well as the circumstances, and ensure that Parliament has the ability to scrutinise the sale.
	The report that the Government will bring to the House on the sale will include, as we have argued both publicly and privately with Ministers, any advice given by the Treasury about the assessment of value for money. The Minister has said throughout that a value-for-money framework lies at the heart of the Government's strategy, and we would simply argue that all hon. Members should have access to that so that they can test the Government's adoption of the powers in the Bill against the circumstances in which the loans are sold. I am delighted that the Minister has moved a considerable way towards our position on that point by adding an amendment that makes the report a statutory requirement and requires it to be laid within three months of the date on which the Secretary of State enters into transfer arrangements.
	So we will get the report, understand the advice that has been given to the Government and see the value-for-money framework. That would mean that the Opposition —indeed all hon. Members—would be able to scrutinise the Government accordingly. Whatever pressure has been put on the Minister by the Treasury, he will be answerable for the circumstances of the sale, credit crunch or no credit crunch.
	Our amendment to Lords amendment No. 7 would insert the requirement that
	"The report must also include an assessment of the impact of the sale on borrowers."
	The effect on borrowers should also be taken into account, given that no impact assessment was made when the Bill was published and I understand that the Government are unlikely to add one at this late stage. At the very least, a retrospective analysis of the impact on borrowers should form part of the report that the Government make to the House. I have tested the Minister on this point privately. I asked him in writing—I am sure that we would be willing to make that correspondence public—why there was no impact assessment originally, why one should not be made now and why, given the permissive nature of the amendments introduced in the Lords, we should not test the issue even at this late stage.
	Sadly, even given the Minister's eminent sense of fair play and professionalism, he has yet to bring an impact assessment before the House. It is, therefore, all the more important that the impact on borrowers be included in the report that we get retrospectively. I shall be interested to hear his comments on that. We are delighted that this amendment was tabled. We first raised our concerns on Second Reading and in Committee, and pointed out that it would be "useful" to have a provision on value for money that was set in stone. On Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) moved an amendment that would have placed value-for-money criteria on the face of the Bill. At the time the Minister described the amendment as unnecessary and I am glad that, following detailed discussions and correspondence, we have been able to find a way forward.
	On Second Reading, the Minister explained that the loan book had last been valued at £18.1 billion, and he said that it was the Government's intention to raise £6 billion in receipts over the next three years—almost exactly a third of the book's value. I hope that he will be able to give us some idea of the Government's immediate intentions. Do they intend to sell a third of the loan book over the next six months to a year? If they do not intend to sell a third, what proportion do they intend to sell? We would also like some idea of the timetable, given that these amendments deal with value for money, and it is difficult for us to understand the scale of the issue unless we understand the detail of the Government's intentions.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham mentioned the credit crunch and the uncertain financial markets, which have worsened since Second Reading, which was held on 22 November last year. It would be useful to know whether any subsequent valuation of the loan book has been made, because it may well be that the Government need to sell more than a third to raise the stated £6 billion. It could be less, of course—I do not want to be too pessimistic.

John Redwood: I would have thought that the ideal outcome would be for the Government to pass the legislation but await a market improvement. Then the incoming Conservative Government could have the receipts in their first year.

John Hayes: That would be nirvana, a perfect outcome. We would support the Bill with alacrity on the basis that we would spend the cash, and we would, of course, put it to altogether better use than the present Administration. However, I do not wish to be unkind. After all, it is my birthday and I am even more tempted to be generous than my character leads me to be every other day of the year.
	We do not know whether the value of the loan book has gone up or down since November. We can guess, based on market conditions, but it would be useful if the Minister could give us a little more detail. He has told us on numerous occasions that if value for money cannot be ensured, the sale will not go ahead. This amendment will ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny takes place, but it is also important that we have some idea of the effect on borrowers. Our amendment would ensure that borrowers had that certainty about their future circumstances.
	As I said, it is unusual for the Government to table as significant an amendment as Lords amendment No. 2 to a Bill after its Commons stage. When the Bill was introduced, a full impact assessment was not conducted because, as I argued, the Government did not feel that it was necessary. They said that no aspect of the Bill would
	"create a material impact on borrowers, higher education institutions or employers".
	However, the new provisions will allow the Secretary of State either to fix or to change regulations in relation to those loans that are to be sold, with a consequent material impact on borrowers. Given that Lords amendment No. 2 changes the terms of the Bill, one possible way forward would be for the Government to conduct a retrospective assessment of the impact of each sale on the holders of student loans. The permissive nature of the amendment has created considerable uncertainty about the potential impact of sales and a full assessment would provide much-needed clarity on that point and thus might allay Opposition concerns, as I said when I wrote to the Minister about these matters.
	I want to say a few words about Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 14. The explanatory notes on the Lords amendments say:
	"These amendments would make drafting changes to the clause on sharing of information with purchasers and potential purchasers. Lords Amendments 11 and 12 would make explicit that HMRC information may be disclosed in relation to loans that have not yet been sold, as well as those that have been sold. Restrictions already contained in the Bill restrict the disclosure of personalised data to actual purchasers and their agents."
	The Minister has repeatedly made it clear that data would be anonymised in as much as they needed to be shared—for example, for accounting purposes. The explanatory notes go on:
	"Amendment 13 would define the permitted onward disclosure of anonymised HMRC data by reference to the purpose of disclosure—in connection with loans that have been or may be transferred—rather than by reference to the identity of parties who may receive such data. Amendment 14 would make explicit that the narrow group to which onward disclosure of personalised HMRC data is permissible does include loan purchasers' auditors."
	It would be useful if the Minister said a further word about all that.
	There have been doubts about the maintenance and transfer of personal data. I do not want to raise again the issue of the failures and errors of the Government in handling data. To do so would perhaps be harsh on the Minister, who has not been personally responsible for such problems. However, he takes collective responsibility for the shambolic behaviour of those on the Labour Front Bench and, as a result, it is important that we have assurances from him today about precisely what will happen in respect of data handling.
	We are pleased that the Government have made amendments to the Bill to clarify the provisions on who will have access to HMRC data. We have expressed concerns throughout the passage of the Bill, in the measured way that I have today, about the danger of data falling into the wrong hands, being misused or, heaven forbid, being lost altogether. That danger is particularly acute if the book is broken up into many parts as a result of onward sales.
	The Minister said earlier that he does not expect the loan book to be collateralised and sold on. He has made that point repeatedly during our considerations, but I find it hard to believe. It might well be sold on as that is the nature of the sale of debt. I accept his assurances that control can be exercised in respect of the initial sale, but the hon. Member for Bristol, West was right to insist that, because of the potentially convoluted and complex nature of the data that will be held and shared, a clear audit trail is very important.
	I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that the Student Loans Company will be the responsible agency for that information, but once again borrowers will want assurances about not only the accuracy of the data that are being transferred but where the data will reside, who has access to them and who might get access to them by fair means or foul. It is important that the Minister should say a word or two more given the prevailing circumstances, not all of his making, of public doubts about data, their maintenance and their security.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to come back specifically on Lords amendment No. 2 and our amendment to it. I hope that he will say a further word about the security of data and that he will also tell us something about the reason for the amendment and the background to it, in order to clear up the uncertainty that has arisen from the original letter from Baroness Morgan and the subsequent discussion. I hope that he might also give us some feel of the value of the book and the Government's intentions in respect of sales, of how those sales might operate and of how the report to Parliament might shape up in practice. All Members of this House are determined that borrowers' and taxpayers' interests should be preserved. This House is the place to ensure that Ministers are held to account accordingly.
	I hope that our amendment, our response to Government amendments and the views expressed by Opposition Members in the other place and here have made those matters paramount in the Minister's mind, so we wait to hear him express his thoughts in a few moments' time.

Stephen Williams: The Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, with some help from a distinguished Back Bencher, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), has already well rehearsed the arguments about how the Government must weigh up the interests of the taxpayer while at the same time protecting the interests of the graduates who have borrowed from the Student Loans Company.
	I understand that to secure value for money for the taxpayer and to get the best possible circumstances for a successful sale, the Government might want to reduce the uncertainty for any potential purchaser but, none the less, I am worried that Lords amendment No. 2, inserted by the Government, perhaps limits the scope for future Parliaments—or, indeed, for future Governments, as the Government probably have a defined life that may well end quite soon—to alter the terms of loan repayments.
	There are four aspects of loan repayments that graduates have to face and it would be entirely valid for this Government or future Governments to reconsider them. There is the threshold for the commencement of loan repayments, which is set at a salary level of £15,000. That threshold has been in place for several years now and, unlike virtually all other effective aspects of the tax code, it is not indexed each year, alongside the personal allowance and higher rate tax bands. It has been left frozen at £15,000 for some time and is therefore quite regressive in its impact. It would be legitimate for a future Government or this Parliament to reconsider that threshold. The repayment rate of 9 per cent. is effectively a flat-rate tax—I understand that there are enthusiasts for flat-rate taxes on the Opposition Benches.

Bill Rammell: For clarity's sake, is the hon. Gentleman advocating an annual uprating of the threshold?

Stephen Williams: It should certainly be considered. The Minister will be aware, as I am—I represent a constituency with many graduates who face these punitive loan repayments—that concerns have been expressed by individuals and by the National Union of Students about the repayment terms. The rate of repayment, which is 9 per cent. of earnings, is a hefty flat-rate tax to face early on in a graduate career. The cut-off period of 25 years is a progressive part of the loan regime, which we would want to protect, but none the less the discretion of a future Parliament to review it should not be fettered.
	The terms of the rate of interest, its calculation and whether it is related to the consumer prices index or the retail prices index has, as I am sure the Minister will know, been the subject of much discussion in student circles in the past couple of years as those rates have deviated from each other. The Government choose one measure of inflation to calculate people's salary increases—particularly of people in the public sector, who include many graduates—but choose another to uprate the terms of their underlying graduate debt. A future Government may wish to consider all those things; I hope that the Minister is not fettering the scope of such deliberation.
	I shall not say much about amendment No. 3. Instead, I turn to amendment No. 7, which is about value for money for the taxpayer. That issue exercised us greatly on Report in January, and it was rightly the subject of much debate in another place. It is good that the Government have now conceded that they will make a report to Parliament within three months of any sale. It will include the publication of the Treasury guidance to the accounting officer of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. I wonder who will audit the report. Will there be any external audit? Obviously, the report will be about a substantial part of the Government's income.

John Hayes: I presume that those matters could be considered by the Public Accounts Committee, for example. Indeed, once the loan book had been sold, I would be surprised if the Committee did not want to consider them in detail.

Stephen Williams: The hon. Gentleman's intervention anticipated my next point. As I said on Report back in January, we assume that the transaction is of such magnitude that the National Audit Office will want to consider it retrospectively to make sure that the Government have obtained value for money for the taxpayer. In the ordinary course of events, that will lead to a hearing in front of the Public Accounts Committee, of which I used to be a member, and to another report. Will there be an additional external audit, independent of the National Audit Office, of the report that will come to Parliament? There is often a significant gap between a transaction resulting from a Government action, the National Audit Office's consideration of that transaction, the Public Accounts Committee's consideration of it and the publication of the PAC report; often there will 12-plus months in between. It is important that the report that comes to Parliament within three months should be independently verified.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely strong point. Will the Government encourage the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee to take a look after the sale of each tranche of the book? The Minister may want to say something about that today. It seems appropriate for the PAC to do that, given the potential delay mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams). If we are to have a report to Parliament in three months, why should the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee not scrutinise each report?

Stephen Williams: The hon. Gentleman's point is helpful, I am sure. None the less, the independence of the Public Accounts Committee is an important part of parliamentary procedure; perhaps it should not take suggestions from the Government on when it is or is not appropriate for it to consider a particular transaction. I shall, however, be interested in the Minister's reaction to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
	A second, practical aspect of the matter is the time limit of three months. Let us suppose that the Bill goes through tonight and receives Royal Assent shortly. If they wished, the Government could then embark on a series of sales. In three months' time, I shall probably be in Bournemouth and the Minister may well be preparing to go to wherever his conference is this year. How flexible will the period be?
	During the discussion on our earlier string of amendments, we had a debate on the meaning of the words "aim to"; amendment No. 7 refers to a precise period of three months. How will it be possible to make a report to Parliament within three months if Parliament is not sitting?
	I turn to the general question of value for money. As Conservative Members have said, this is not a terribly good time for the Government to sell off part of their underlying assets. The Government may well be so desperate to make a sale at the moment that they are seeking to put terms into the Bill that are drafted to be in the interests of potential purchasers. To meet their obligations under the comprehensive spending review, the Government need to raise the proceeds that have already been referred to. In this financial year of the three-year CSR, I understand that the Government have a target to raise £3.4 billion, before the end of March 2009. Will the Minister confirm that? They aim to raise £6 billion overall in the three-year CSR period. Government finances are in a parlous state so will the Government be pressurised into selling this asset, which currently belongs to the taxpayer, to meet short-term financial embarrassments, rather than to make long-term investments in higher education? Such investments would be a much better use of the proceeds that will be realised once the student loan book is partially sold.
	I shall not dwell for too long on amendments Nos. 11 to 14; the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has already diligently read out the guidance notes on the Bill. However, I share his concern that we should make sure that proper data protection procedures are in place so that the data that belong to individuals are not in any way compromised and are held only by those with a direct interest in the individual and their ability to make repayments, and not by any prospective purchasers or any people associated with them.

Bill Rammell: This group of amendments deals with the process by which the Government may give undertakings concerning amendments to regulations, with how the Government will report on each sale and with how information about borrowers will be handled. Let me start by being explicit about the value-for-money framework. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, we have made it clear that the sales would not take place unless we could demonstrate value for money. The Government have published forecasts of anticipated receipts of some £6.3 billion from the proposed sales programme over the comprehensive spending review period. However, the key point is that the amounts are forecasts rather than commitments. The Government are committed to the student loans sale programme, but only if any sale represents good value for money. That should be a significant reassurance.
	I turn specifically to amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 15, which are about undertakings. They respond to expert advice that we have received from our sales arranger, Deutsche bank, which was engaged after Report and Third Reading in the House. For us to achieve good value for money on behalf of the taxpayer, potential purchasers must understand what is being sold. Financial institutions can model the economic and credit risks that we wish to transfer away from the Government, but not the political risk of Ministers using their powers to change the conditions of repayment—and, consequently, predicted cash flows to the purchaser. If potential purchasers believed that the Government might alter an asset in an unpredictable way after selling it, that would seriously reduce what those purchasers would be prepared to pay.
	The Bill already provides the option of offering compensation if future policy changes compromise the value of the transferred asset. However, we have been advised that the Government might achieve better value for money if they could give undertakings about how regulations governing student loans may or may not change terms and conditions in future. The impact that a compensation mechanism may have on the size and timing of future cash flows may contain too much uncertainty for investors. Having the power to give undertakings also gives flexibility to cater for possible changes in the classification rules, which are currently being redrafted by EUROSTAT.

John Hayes: The Minister has been clear about the reasons. If a Minister acted in the way that he describes, terms could be fixed on the part of the loan book that was being sold, but not on the part that was not being sold. That would mean that borrowers in the same circumstances, borrowing the same amount for the same reason, had very different arrangements. Is the Minister uncomfortable about that?

Bill Rammell: As I have made clear throughout the proceedings on the Bill, we expect the terms and conditions to be the same regardless of whether the student loan has been sold. The impact on the borrower should be exactly the same.
	I was referring to the EUROSTAT redrafting process. Changes in the rules, which occur from time to time, can have a material impact on the ability to offer compensation. It would be unwise to have only one means of addressing the issue that might, under rules updated after the current redrafting or a future alteration, prevent a true sale. That would negate part of the purpose of transferring the loans from the public to the private sector. I can give the response that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) asked for in respect of the comments of my noble Friend Baroness Morgan. She made it clear in the other place that the amendment that gives powers to make undertakings aims to ensure that a sale can yield good value for money and that a true sale can release resources for use on Government priorities. It provides an option for the Government to use in realising both those aims.

John Hayes: I think that the Minister may have misunderstood my first intervention; perhaps I did not make it clearly enough. If the terms were fixed for the tranche of the loan book that was being sold, which is precisely what the amendment gives the Government power to do, it is entirely possible that borrowers whose loans had been sold would have fixed term loan rates whereas borrowers whose loans had not been sold might be subject to the decisions of a subsequent Minister in this Government, or indeed in a different Government, regarding their loan rate. Is that something that we should sanction?

Bill Rammell: I think that I answered the hon. Gentleman's point. We have made it clear throughout that we expect borrowers—graduates—to be treated in exactly the same whether their debt has been sold to the private sector or remains with the Government. There should be—and there will be, as far as this Government are concerned—equality of treatment.
	Another point was made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is no longer with us—

Robert Wilson: He is no longer in his place.

Bill Rammell: Indeed. The phrase, "No longer with us", has another interpretation that I did not for a minute wish to suggest.
	The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we were seeking to make the product more agreeable by allowing purchasers to take more money from students. It is important to put that point right—the Bill is about ensuring that the product does not become more disagreeable. It gives investors the certainty that we will not sell them one product and then legislate to turn it into another product. It is categorically and explicitly not about allowing purchasers to take more money from borrowers, as we made clear with amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which we have already discussed. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 enable the Secretary of State to give undertakings about the power to make or amend loan regulations under section 186 of the Education Act 2002.
	On the Opposition amendment to Lords amendment No. 2, it may help if I say a little more about how we expect the undertakings, which would be included in the contract for the sale of the loans, to work. The aim of any such undertakings would be to provide a degree of certainty to potential purchasers that the Government will not amend regulations after a transaction in a way that would affect the nature of the asset and decrease the value of the asset that had been sold or do so in a way that was not set out at the time of the sale. No one buys a product in the expectation that it will turn into something completely different. Purchasers will be concerned to guard against that, not to seek to improve their position. The undertakings that we envisage will not be about changing or promising to change loan terms to improve the lot of the purchaser but about giving certainty about the current position and the Government's intentions over time. The exact wording of such undertakings, if given, would have to be worked out as an integral part of the sale documentation.
	Through those contractual undertakings, the Secretary of State can set out his intentions not to make particular amendments to loan regulations after a sale or to limit changes to the regulations in particular ways. For example, he might undertake not to propose an increase in the repayment threshold by more than a certain factor in a given year or to change the regulations only to do something that purchasers could predict. Paragraph (a) is necessary—this goes to the heart of the Opposition amendment—to avoid any doubt that such undertakings can be made. The loan terms will continue to be governed by regulations, which are subject to scrutiny and approval in the House. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw his amendment.
	I turn to amendments Nos. 7 and 16. If the Government use undertakings in sale contracts, they will be made public as part of the sale process. That brings me to amendment No. 7 on reporting to Parliament. In this House and in another place, value for money has rightly been at the centre of our discussions. Having listened carefully to the arguments, we propose to strengthen the commitment that I gave on Third Reading that the Government would report to Parliament after each transaction. Amendment No. 7 places a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within three months of each transaction. He must inform Parliament about the value-for-money assessment that his Department made that led to the transaction going ahead. The report should reflect any Treasury guidance on the required procedures used across the public sector for assessing value for money. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to the role of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. The NAO and the PAC have already made clear their intention to report on these matters. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) got it right—this is not a matter to be dictated by Government but a matter for the NAO and the PAC, which have made their position clear.
	In response to the Opposition amendment to Lords amendment No. 7, I am happy to put it on record that the report should cover any effect that the transaction would have on borrowers. As we have stressed throughout the passage of the Bill, protecting the position of borrowers is one of our key and fundamental objectives. I acknowledge the diligent efforts of Opposition Members to press us on how we will meet that aim. I believe that the safeguards in the Bill, not least those contained in amendments Nos. 8 and 9, mean that the sales transaction, including any undertakings that may be given, will have no detrimental effect on borrowers. We expect that the report to Parliament would confirm that. I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will agree that the commitment that I have made on the record is the appropriate response to what he has sought and argued for. I hope that he is therefore reassured and urge him to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes: The Minister is being typically generous, but will he clarify this point? I appreciate that the Government do not expect there to be any impact on borrowers, but is he saying that an assessment of that would be included in the report regardless of whether there was an impact?

Bill Rammell: Absolutely; that is my commitment on the record.
	Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 make drafting changes to clause 6 on information about borrowers. There must be no doubt about how HMRC information may be disclosed in relation to loan sales. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 provide a simpler expression that disclosure may relate both to loans being offered for sale and those that have already been sold. Amendment No. 13 describes a class of disclosure of anonymised HMRC financial information, so that it may go to those who have a purpose connected with the loans being offered for sale or that have been sold. We believe that that is the most effective way to ensure that this kind of non-personal data can be given to those who need that information, because across a long-term programme of loan sales we could never create a complete list of the potential purchasers, investors and financial institutions that could provide advice about a transaction. On the much more restricted access to personal data, amendment No. 14 is intended to make it clear that the narrow definition of an actual purchaser or its agent should include the purchaser's auditor. Without the explicit reference, that might not be understood.
	The amendments in this group enhance the Bill. They provide a more effective framework for the programme of sales at the same time as strengthening accountability to Parliament. We have had constructive engagements and we have a stronger Bill. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House and hope that the Opposition can feel free to withdraw their amendments.

John Hayes: I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. He is right: this has been a model of good parliamentary dialogue. We have had a useful and constructive series of engagements on the Floor of the House, in the other place, in Committee, and, if I may put it this way, behind the scenes. We have exchanged letters between Ministers and shadow Ministers in a manner that was altogether more co-operative than the public might expect or anticipate. They would be alarmed if they knew quite how friendly our relations have been, because some love to paint us in a less favourable light than we deserve, do they not, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
	The Minister has made important changes to the Bill, which in essence give the House the power to assess the Government's behaviour in an entirely reasonable way. That is to say, it can make an informed judgment based on empirical evidence about whether value for money has been assured. We now hear, and I am delighted that the Minister has said so, that that will include an assessment of the impact on borrowers of just the kind that I asked for in my remarks a few moments ago. On that basis, how could I possibly complain about the amendments before us, or the Minister's response to them?
	The Opposition have fulfilled their purpose. We have scrutinised the legislation with assiduity, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), other Conservative Members, and indeed, although it is against my instincts ever to be nice to Liberals, I thank the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams). On the basis of those assurances, I am delighted to say that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments No. 3 to 16 agreed to.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

[Relevant documents: The  Nineteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: 28 days, intercept and post-charge questioning, HC 394, the Second Report from the Committee, on Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: 42 days, HC 156, and the Twentieth Report from the Committee, on Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Counter-Terrorism Bill, HC 554.]

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.
	The Government agreed during the debates that we had during the passage of what became the Terrorism Act 2006 that there should be a requirement for the annual renewal by Parliament of section 23 of the Act, which extends the maximum period of detention of terrorist suspects from 14 to 28 days. The order before us, therefore, disapplies section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 for a period of one year beginning with 25 July 2008, thereby extending the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects of 28 days for a further year.
	Without rehearsing our deliberations on the most recent Counter-Terrorism Bill, I can say that, as the House will know, nothing in it impacts on this provision. Indeed, the provision for a specific extension beyond 28 days—in grave and exceptional circumstances—is predicated and built on the annual renewal of 28 days. The measure is important in itself, and in the context of the Bill. Pre-charge detention has been the subject of considerable debate over the past 12 months in this House and, in the broader sense, in the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I do not want to go over those debates here, but it is worth reminding ourselves why Parliament agreed to the exceptional 28-day limit.
	As the House will be aware, terrorist investigations can be hugely time-consuming and the increase from 14 to 28 days was, the House judged, necessary, primarily as a result of greater use of encrypted computers and mobile phones, the increasingly complex nature of terrorist networks that have to be investigated and, not least, the increasingly international nature of terrorist networks, meaning greater language difficulties and a greater need to gather evidence from abroad. The safety of the public is, of course, paramount and it is the responsibility of the Government and security and law enforcement agencies to protect our citizens from the threats posed by terrorism.
	The first priority must be to stop terrorist activity taking place rather than dealing with its consequences. However, where we do identify those who are engaged in terrorism, we need to ensure that we have the right tools to investigate and prosecute those involved. In much police work, the investigation takes place after a crime has been committed. In such cases there will often be a victim, possible suspects, witnesses to the crime and forensic material from the crime scene. The police will investigate the crime and may arrest the suspect when they have already gathered a considerable amount of admissible evidence. In such cases, only a few days may be needed to question the suspect before a decision is taken on whether to charge them for an offence.
	The House knows that terrorism cases are different, but none the less, to the full extent possible, they should be dealt with in the normal and routine context of our laws. However, because of the severe consequences of a terrorist attack, the police and security services invariably need to intervene before it takes place. Critically, they may need to intervene at a very early stage in an investigation, before they have had the opportunity to gather any admissible evidence, and on the basis of limited intelligence about who and what is involved. As Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick said recently, in his evidence to the Counter-Terrorism Bill Committee:
	"In some investigations, we have seen that"—
	attack planning activities—
	"materialise so quickly that on public safety grounds we have had to act pre-emptively before we have had the opportunity to exploit pre-arrest evidential opportunities. That places a huge burden on the senior investigating officer." ——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Bill Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 14, Q8.]
	Few would disagree with the need to pre-empt such attacks. That is why UK legislation has, since 2000, provided specific powers of arrest and detention in relation to terrorism.
	The provisions for extended pre-charge detention for up to 28 days in the Terrorism Act 2006 take account of these practical and unique difficulties, and the decision to increase pre-charge detention limits from 14 to 28 days has, I believe, been justified by subsequent events and it means that we have been able to bring forward prosecutions that otherwise might not have been possible. Indeed, both the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions have made it clear that the 28-day limit is necessary. From when the power came into force in July 2006, six people have been held for between 27 and 28 days, three of whom were charged.
	We accept that the Government should endeavour to provide detailed statistical information on the use of the 28-day limit in advance of the renewal debates and, once the joint Home Office-police review of pre-charge detention statistics has been completed, we expect to be able to provide more detailed information on the outcome of detention, including the charges brought against those charged. Let us be clear: the application for extension is a rigorous process. A Crown Prosecution Service lawyer makes the application for extensions beyond 14 days, and the senior investigating officer is present. Defence solicitors are provided in advance of each application with a written document setting out the grounds for the application. The applications are usually strenuously opposed and can last several hours. The officer may be questioned vigorously by the defence solicitor about all aspects of the case.
	Some have accused the police of holding a suspect for the maximum period simply because it is available. I have to say that that is abject nonsense. The police investigate as quickly as possible. They must do so, and they are obliged to do so under the law. Nothing in the Terrorism Act 2000, or afterwards, changes that. The essential principle of arresting someone with a view to charging at the earliest opportunity pertains under terrorism law, as it does with all other law. The police investigate as quickly as possible—they must do. They would not detain anyone for longer than was absolutely necessary, which has been clearly demonstrated by the fact that only six people have been held for the maximum period since the power came into force, and none has been held for the maximum period since the 28-day limit was renewed last year.
	Indeed, when applying to the court for an extension of detention, the police and CPS have to present substantial evidence for further detention. A judge may not grant extensions of detention where he or she is not satisfied that the investigation is being pursued diligently and expeditiously. Judges can, of course, grant fewer than the full seven days' extension requested—they have done so—and, indeed, they can grant no extension if they feel further detention is not justified.
	In an evidence session of the Public Bill Committee on the Counter-Terrorism Bill, Sue Hemming, the head of the counter-terror division in the CPS, made it clear that that view prevails. She said:
	"We certainly did not keep people in unnecessarily. There has to be a certain amount of time for the police to investigate... If you arrest people, the police have to look at what the plot is, who is involved and what the evidence is. As with any case, the pre-charge detention time has to allow a certain amount of time for the police to investigate and question. I seriously dispute any allegation that we kept people in any longer than we had to."
	In the same session, Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions said:
	"The idea that we have sufficient evidence after 14 days, but, for some reason best known to ourselves wait until days 26 or 27 to charge is wrong." ——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 55, Q141.]
	Those who keep putting about the myth that somehow those who were held for a period closer to 27 or 28 days were incarcerated while the prosecution and the police twiddled their thumbs or did some knitting are palpably wrong. I deprecate the comments of Liberty, which were utterly wrong, on the eve of the recent consideration of the Counter-Terrorism Bill on fact and fiction about the existing 28-day pre-charge detention limit. Liberty spoke rather cleverly, as it does, about the Government and the police—and, I presume, the CPS and the DPP—sexing up the evidence. It is not for anyone, in the House or established pressure groups, to second-guess after the event the investigating, prosecuting and policing strategy of the police or the CPS and DPP during frenetic days of frenetic activity. It is a shame when that happens.
	I am afraid that a former Member, David Davis, perpetuates the myth on his website, and that is a matter for profound regret. By all means let people take up the matter with me or with the Government—the politicians and those who argue policy positions—but I deprecate people attacking, by implication if nothing else, the integrity of our police and the prosecution service.
	Liberty also issued a much less duplicitous document, entitled "The Real Consensus", with a sub-heading, "Extensions Beyond 28 days: Unnecessary and Counter-productive", which, for at least today's debate, I will pray in aid. I did not do that last week or the preceding week, but a series of quotations, with which hon. Members will be familiar, emphasise the consensus that has emerged on 28 days. Whatever our view of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, that broad consensus, albeit flaking round the edges in some quarters, about 28 days still exists and commands the House's support.

David Winnick: To put the record straight, I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I have never once questioned the need for 28 days. I proposed it and it was agreed in November 2005. I therefore do not associate myself with any remarks about 28 days being unnecessary. However, I emphasise that the consensus that was reached on 28 days remains, and there is no justification for moving to 42 days.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the Minister will resist the temptation to go down other alleyways.

Tony McNulty: I shall, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the renewal of the order. I share his view that there is a consensus on 28 days, except for extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. I shall say no more than that.
	I genuinely and sincerely believe that for all hon. Members, getting the balance right between individual freedom and collective security must always be at the heart of what we do. I think that most hon. Members would agree that there is no contradiction between pursuing our counter-terrorism objectives and defending our freedoms and civil liberties. Fourteen days remains the only permanent, statutory maximum provision for pre-charge detention, and 28 days—the subject of the renewal order—is for exceptional circumstances. However, that exceptional power continues to be necessary as a result of the growing scale and complexity of terrorist investigations.
	All hon. Members appreciate the seriousness of the terrorist threat that we face and the importance of having the right measures in place to counter it. Terrorism is a huge international challenge, but it is a particular challenge for democracies, which must strive to protect individual liberties while ensuring collective security. It is vital to strike the balance between protecting the rights of the detainee and ensuring that an investigation proceeds properly and effectively, thus enabling the police to deal with the complexity of modern terrorism investigations. The order seeks to do that, and it is right to make it the subject of an annual debate. I say with regret that, given the nature of the threat, the absolute need for section 25 of the 2006 Act to be disapplied remains. I hope that hon. Members agree, and I commend the order, which achieves that purpose, to the House.

David Ruffley: We will not oppose the order. The Minister's speech contained much good sense and I agree with much of what he said. Now is not the time for a rehearsal of the powerful arguments for and against the extension to 42 days; we are here to discuss 28 days. I was struck by the Minister's remarks about a consensus; he even said nice things about Liberty and its comments on 28 days. I want to sign up to that spirit of consensus about 28 days, and support the Minister on it.
	It is worth stating the obvious: the need for Parliament to renew section 23 of the 2006 Act annually demonstrates that the extension from 14 to 28 days is already an exceptional power. We must scrutinise it annually because it is such a dramatic departure from normal practice in this country.
	As I said, Her Majesty's Opposition will not oppose the order, which keeps the maximum period of detention without charge at 28 days. We do not oppose it because there is a consensus, as the Minister observed, but it is based on the evidence currently available to us. I would like to place on record not only the view of my former right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden but that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). They both made it crystal clear, in the same terms, that in future, 28 days must be tested on the evidence available every time we test the proposition for it—in other words, annually—so that the figure is not set in stone for all time or even for a reasonably long time. It must be examined each year in the light of evidence available. That could lead to the House agreeing to a different figure.

David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman speaks about a consensus. I presume that no one will vote against the order tonight. Moreover, no one in the other place, despite the many differing views there, voted against 28 days on the basis that it was too long. There is clearly a consensus on 28 days in both Houses.

David Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a consensus, given the evidence currently available. That may change. Let me give some evidence to support the hon. Gentleman's remarks and those of the Minister, which also reflect my view, about the consensus on 28 days, which has been agreed by the House and the other place.
	In evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the Director of Public Prosecutions said:
	"Well, we welcomed the increase to 28 days and we felt that a period of 14 days was not sufficient. It seems to us that 28 days has been effective and has provided us with powers, if you like, supervised by the courts, which have been useful to us as prosecutors in making appropriate charging decisions within that period. We are, on the basis of what has occurred since then, satisfied with 28 days. We have not had any cases which would require a longer period than that"
	The former shadow Home Secretary recently received a parliamentary answer in which the Home Secretary stated that
	"from 20 January 2004 to date, 11 individuals have been held for over 14 days pre-charge detention, six individuals were held for the maximum 27-28 days, of which three individuals were charged, and three individuals were released without charge."—[ Official Report, 2 June 2008; Vol. 476, c. 745W.]
	The figures showed that of the four suspects held without charge for up to 20 days, all were charged.
	Twenty-eight days is longer than we would like to see in our common law—when I say "we", I mean most of those who want to scrutinise these propositions, which have implications for civil liberties. Twenty-eight days is a long time; indeed, it is certainly longer than in other parts of the western, industrialised, democratic world. None the less, we believe that the extension from 14 days to 28 days was right, on the evidence available since it came into effect, including the evidence as of today.
	The Minister and hon. Members will be relieved to hear that I will not recite anything about the extension to 42 days that the House voted on recently, although not because I shy away from the arguments that my friend and colleague, the former Member for Member for Haltemprice and Howden put forward; indeed, there were powerful and passionate arguments on both sides. Rather, before closing my remarks, I would like to ask a couple of questions about two issues mentioned in the debate held this time last year, when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, now the shadow Home Secretary, stood in my position and debated the issue with the Minister.
	The first question relates to concerns raised about the operation of what was then the recently introduced code H of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, dealing with terrorist cases. It seems moderately clear that the rules designed to cover the detention of a person for what is usually 24 or 48 hours are not suitable when someone is in custody for a much longer period. Can the Minister share his thinking, or any evidence, on how frequently individuals have been transferred to prison from police cells during the period of detention, and on how the system has operated in bringing them back to police stations for further interviews?
	Other concerns were raised about how code H could in theory allow for a person to be questioned for hour after hour, over a period that could extend to 28 days. I am sure that that has not happened in practice. However, can the Minister give us his analysis of how the code is operating? There are, I am sure, breaks for rest. Could he shed any light on that, provided that doing so would not breach any operational or national security considerations?
	The reason that is important is not a wishy-washy, bleeding-heart liberal reason, as some outside this place might characterise my questions—I am sure that the Minister would not characterise them like that—but because of fears that any statement made in a period running up to 28 days could be challenged by defence counsel at any future trial, on the basis of a suggestion that coercion had been involved in the defendant's giving of evidence, because of excessive and prolonged questioning, which had perhaps taken place without the benefit of any requisite breaks. That concern is thrown up by what, last year, was the relatively new code H under the 1984 Act.
	My second and final question also relates to something that was raised in last year's debate, and is about how longer periods of detention without charge might allow for press speculation that made the prospect of a fair trial difficult or impossible. The Minister said that he hoped that the Crown Prosecution Service would put out a paper on that issue. Can he give us an update on that, and on what his thinking is on the subject?
	Both my questions concern the operation of the regime to which the order relates. To conclude, I hope that we can get away from the idea that those who propose the longest period of detention without charge are the toughest on terrorists. Her Majesty's Opposition believe that the House must be robust in doing our best to protect the security of the people in our country. However, that must always be balanced—this is always a difficult judgment—against our British values, parts of which rely on an adherence to civil liberties, as one of our principal weapons in defeating those who wish to harm us. It is in that spirit of friendly inquiry to the Minister that I close my remarks.

Andrew Dismore: I rise in part to speak to the Joint Committee on Human Rights reports that have been tagged to today's debate, all of which start from the basic premise that we have a duty to protect the public from terrorism and violence.
	As has been said, it is important to recognise that the 28-day extension was to be an exception and that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, it amounted to a compromise. If we are considering extending that exception, we have to proceed with caution and consider the matter properly, bearing in mind that the power has not been used for at least a year since it was last renewed. It is Parliament's duty to scrutinise the Government's request, as put forward in the order.
	I for one would not try to second-guess the Government's assessment, although that is not primarily because of the reason advanced by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) about evidence to support the Government's case; rather, it is simply that we have practically no evidence at all, one way or the other, of how the 28-day rule has operated in practice, on the very few occasions on which it has been used.
	Of course, we have plenty of evidence about the general level of the terrorist threat, but that is a red herring in this debate, because the 28-day power comes into effect only once a plot has crystallised and those involved have been arrested, and once it has been shown that the 14-day period is inadequate for their questioning. What we need to consider is not the general level of the threat, but cases where people have been arrested, questioned and ultimately charged.
	To enable Parliament to review the issues properly and effectively, we need a detailed and meaningful analysis. I had hoped that the independent reviewer would be in a position to provide that. The Government said that it was the intention to provide the independent reviewer's report before the renewal debate. They are as good as their word, because it was published this morning, although that has not really given hon. Members enough time to scrutinise properly what the independent review has to say, never mind the time for a Select Committee such as mine or the Home Affairs Committee to read what he had to say. I hope that in future the Government will make the report available 28 days before the debate, as we have recommended, so that it can be properly considered. Indeed, it was a pity that the report was not available for the debates a couple of weeks ago, because the independent reviewer has brought forward useful information for both sides of the argument, as it were, on 42 days.
	We now have the independent reviewer's report, but he says nothing at all about the use of the 28-day procedure. In his 2006 report, he did not give any detail at all—not even the number of cases—about the 28-day cases in that period. In paragraph 103 of his report, he says:
	"I have not been asked by Ministers to provide a detailed analysis of this system. It would be difficult for me to do so in any meaningful way without becoming effectively embedded in some cases from arrest to verdict, to gain the full picture. This has not been part of the reviewer's tasks, but could be included if required by Parliament. I should welcome clarity as to whether this is required".
	I am sure that we would all welcome clarity on that issue. Someone needs to get into these cases to find out what has been going on, so as to avoid the kind of speculation that my right hon. Friend the Minister says is coming forward from Liberty's putting two and two together to make five about what has been going on. The only way in which we can answer these questions is by having an independent person who can get into the meat and find out what has gone on.
	My right hon. Friend has indicated, in response to our recommendation that there should be an detailed annual report from the Home Secretary, that the Government will put a memorandum in the Library containing relevant information, such as the breakdown of detention periods and the charges that have been brought. In fact, we have no information on any of the cases from the past two years, except for the fact that the power has not been used at all since it was last renewed a year ago.
	We need to have some facts, however, as is made clear in Lord Carlile's report. We know that six people have been held for the maximum period, as my right hon. Friend said, and that three have been charged and are awaiting trial. That obviously means that three were released when they came up against the 28-day wire. Once the cases that have been prosecuted are over, we shall need to analyse them to find out what evidence was available and at what stage.
	My right hon. Friend has attacked Liberty for saying that the charges should have been brought earlier. It may well be that those individuals could have been charged within 14 days on the threshold charge basis, but that the Crown Prosecution Service decided to hang on to see whether it could get sufficient evidence to bring a full code charge within 28 days. I am not saying that that is right or wrong as a factual analysis, or indeed whether it is desirable to hold people longer in order to bring a full code charge as opposed to a threshold charge. We simply do not know. In future debates on renewal—assuming that we have such occasions—we need to be able to discuss whether it is better to hold people longer to get a full code charge than to charge them on a threshold basis at the earliest opportunity. That is a debate that we ought to have in Parliament as part of the way in which these cases are dealt with. As Lord Carlile says, one of the problems with a threshold charge is that it could amount to an abuse, although in practice I do not think that that has been the case, as my Committee noted in its previous report on the 42-day issue.
	We need to know when and how often people are being questioned, although I accept that that is not conclusive in relation to the need to hold someone for a particular period. Most of an inquiry is taken up not by questioning but by other activities such as breaking down computers, analysing phone records and making inquiries overseas. The fact remains, however, that we need to know the answers to these questions. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) gave us some figures on that when we were looking at the post-charge questioning issue a couple of weeks ago. On that basis, people were not questioned for any great length of time in the 28-day period, if his figures were right. We need to know what was going on in that regard. We also need to know what charges were ultimately brought, the reasons those charges were chosen and, ultimately, whether the individuals were convicted. That is the kind of detailed, qualitative analysis that we need when we are having these renewal debates, to ensure that the 28-day power is being used properly and that any exceptional extensions are appropriate.
	We must also remember the three people who were not charged. There is no reason why we should not start to carry out some of this analysis of their cases now. For example, we could find out what interviewing took place and over what period, and whether the investigation was conducted with the urgency required of the system. I make no allegations about whether it was or not; I am quite happy to accept my right hon. Friend's word that it was conducted with urgency. However, that is his assurance—

Tony McNulty: And the DPP's.

Andrew Dismore: My right hon. Friend says that it is also the DPP's assurance, and that might well be the case. However, that does not give the same guarantee as an independent assessment would give, which I think will be necessary in future to ensure public confidence that a case has been scrutinised as effectively and in as much depth as possible. My Committee would like to see an independent review, perhaps by the Metropolitan Police Authority, although the Government's previous response to that proposal was that it would not be appropriate because of prosecution decisions. Perhaps a review by the CPS inspectorate, working with the MPA—most of these cases end up being prosecuted in London—would be a good way of carrying out a combined analysis of what has been going on behind the scenes.
	There has been no assessment of the impact of the provision on individuals. We are told in the explanatory notes:
	"An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument as it has no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies."
	We are also told that the impact on the public sector is likely to be negligible. We know nothing about the impact on the individuals who have been held for 28 days: the three who were released and who were innocent, and the three who were charged. We know nothing about the impact on their mental health, their families or their employment position. The Government told us in their last letter to us that they had obtained no independent medical evidence on the psychological effects on the individuals concerned or, more generally, on what could be expected on an objective view.
	It is my Committee's view that the Government ought to obtain and make available to Parliament general advice on the psychological impact of being held without charge for such long periods and—when it is possible to do so—to provide an actual assessment of the impact on the individuals concerned, in terms of their mental health and of the broader impact on their lives. We could do that now in relation to the three who were released without being charged.
	Our main concern relates to the so-called judicial hearings around the extension process. We do not believe these hearings to be fully adversarial, there is limited disclosure, and the suspect and the lawyer are excluded for much of the hearing. The focus is on whether the investigation is conducted efficiently rather than on whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the arrest and continued detention in the first place. The case of Garcia Alva  v. Germany in the European Court of Human Rights sets out in detail what is expected and goes on to say:
	"The Court recalls that arrested or detained persons are entitled to a review bearing upon the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the 'lawfulness'...of their deprivation of liberty...the court has to examine 'not only compliance with the procedural requirements...but also the reasonableness of the suspicion grounding the arrest and the legitimacy of the purpose pursued by the arrest and the ensuing detention...The proceedings must be adversarial and must always ensure 'equality of arms' between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained person. Equality of arms is not ensured if counsel is denied access to those documents in the investigation file which are essential in order effectively to challenge the lawfulness of his client's detention...The court acknowledges the need for criminal investigations to be conducted efficiently, which may imply that part of the information...is to be kept secret in order to prevent suspects from tampering with evidence and undermining the course of justice."
	The decision goes on to say that
	"this legitimate goal cannot be pursued at the expense of substantial restrictions on the rights of the defence."
	If we look at the proceedings that we now have under schedule 8, we see that it is clear, on any objective analysis, that what is now happening does not meet the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights and, by extension, article 5. It is also interesting to note that Lord Carlile, in paragraph 105 of his report, seems to agree. He says that
	"judges should be permitted to intervene more and make greater demands as the length of detention is extended."
	More importantly, he goes on:
	"The government should consider empowering judges to scrutinise the reasons for detention, and the adequacy of the work done to bring the case to charge, from the 7th day after arrest."
	So we should be concerned not only with the procedure and the fact that the case has been conducted efficiently, which is what we have already. Lord Carlile is saying that we should also scrutinise the reasons for the detention in the first place, which I have advocated in the House on previous occasions. The last time we debated these issues, a number of amendments were tabled on that point.
	It is not true to say that these proceedings have not been challenged in the courts. They were challenged in the case of Naseel Hussein, but he was caught in a Catch-22 situation when the High Court said that it would not review the decision of a High Court judge to extend his detention. That could also have the effect of excluding a potential habeas corpus application as an abuse of process. Habeas corpus requires the person doing the detaining clearly, directly and with sufficient particularity to provide the facts relied on as constituting a valid and sufficient ground for the detention of the person concerned. It is pretty clear that the schedule 8 application does not do that, because the focus is not on the reasons for detention—which is what habeas corpus requires—but on the course of the investigation. That reinforces the point about schedule 8 not meeting the requirements of article 5 or habeas corpus.
	I think that we need to see amendments to the procedure to make sure that we comply. We need to see a statement of the basis of the arrest given to the detainee and the gist of the material forming the grounds of suspicion given to the suspect. We need special advocates for the closed part of the hearing and, importantly, we need entitlement for the judge to look at whether there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the suspect was involved in terrorism in the first place, and reasonable grounds to justify the arrest and the continued detention.
	I am not going to oppose my right hon. Friend the Minister today and I hope that he will see my comments in the intended light—as an attempt to make a constructive contribution to the debate. I think that we need a lot more information about what has been going on in a qualitative way in the cases that we have already seen. I also think that he needs to look at the judicial safeguards as these provisions will be challenged ultimately in the European Court and I do not think that they will stand up.

Christopher Huhne: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who speaks on this issue with a good deal of sense after looking at it very carefully and thinking about it deeply. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will not oppose this temporary annual disapplication. No one should underestimate the serious threats from terrorism and terrorists. We need to be resolute and forearmed in meeting them, but we must do so in a way that is seen to be proportionate.
	Our judgment is that 28 days' detention in present circumstances can be viewed as proportionate, given the evidence from Operation Overt, the investigation in 2006 into the Heathrow bomb plot. I accept that that is longer than any comparable common law country: Australia has 12 days—the longest—the United States two days and Canada one day as the traditional period before a writ of habeas corpus can be served. We will not oppose the need for 28 days temporarily in the UK, partly because it is widely accepted that we face a greater threat in this country than in many others—due not least to our misguided participation in the illegal invasion of Iraq, which is this Government's sad and lasting legacy on this issue. That does not mean, however, that 28 days should be seen as permanent or that we will not oppose this in future.
	As the Minister said in the debate last year, other developments such as post-charge questioning need to be taken into account in deciding whether 28 days is proportionate and appropriate. Indeed, four developments have taken place since the 28-day period was placed on the statute book in November 2005. First, we now have proposals for post-charge questioning in the Counter-Terrorism Bill. Secondly, the Chilcot report has made recommendations for the admissibility of intercept evidence in court, which our counterparts in the United States and Australia find to be essential. We look forward to Ministers' proposals, particularly in light of the comments of Sir Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, to the Public Bill Committee on the Counter-Terrorism Bill. I quote what he said, as it is relevant to the temporary extension to 28 days:
	"Certainly, in other jurisdictions, they regard that material"—
	he was referring to intercept evidence—
	"as absolutely indispensable. The Americans told me that they could not remember an organised crime prosecution in the United States that last proceeded without intercept material. The Australians told me that people who did not use this material were not 'serious' about prosecuting organised crime". ——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 48, Q124.]
	For organised crime, we could certainly read terrorism as well.
	The third development since we put this provision on to the statute book is that the Government have rightly put more resources into the Security Service and into counter-terrorist policing on a substantial scale. That increase inevitably reduces the need for an extension of the period of detention without charge, as greater complexity can be handled with greater resources.
	Fourthly, and perhaps most significantly, there has been a substantial development in the flexibility of the threshold test, as Sir Ken Macdonald has pointed out. The Crown Prosecution Service does not need to ensure that there is a 50 per cent. chance of a successful conviction. Moreover, it is relevant in assessing Sir Ken's margin of manoeuvre to look at the Crown Prosecution Service's success rate with terrorist charges, which has been running at no less than 92 per cent. since the beginning of last year. Clearly, a 92 per cent. success rate after the event can and must inform the CPS about the chances of conviction before the event. It strongly suggests that the CPS has been somewhat conservative in allowing charges to be brought and can therefore have more flexibility in future. Again, that provides a strong argument for reconsidering even 28 days, let alone extending it further.
	The Liberal Democrats will not oppose the extension, while recognising that the arguments in its favour are weakening as our other precautions strengthen, and we merely ask Ministers to accept that principle, as did the Minister precisely on this matter last year. Making progress on the four areas that I mentioned can make the need for lengthy periods of detention without charge unnecessary, and whether an extension beyond 14 days is necessary will warrant reconsideration before next year.

Keith Vaz: I apologise for arriving a little late and missing the Minister's contribution, but I was here to hear the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) speaking for the Opposition. I will be brief. Clearly, the House will pass this order and it is clearly essential that we do so in the interests of this country's security, but I want to make a couple of points that I hope the Minister will take into account in his reply to this short debate.
	The first is that we are discussing 28 days now because that was the compromise that Parliament agreed to the last time this matter came before the House. It was certainly the case before we discussed and passed 42 days a few days ago. That previous compromise was due to the hard work of my fellow member of the Home Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who tabled the amendment that was to gain the House's agreement. At that stage, as we all know, this was an extension of existing law. In accepting and passing this order as we doubtless will today—it seems to be agreed by all parties—it is essential that we look to two particular aspects highlighted by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). I hope that the Minister will respond to both those aspects in his reply.
	The first is the impact on individuals who have been held by the police for up to 28 days. We in the Home Affairs Committee took evidence from the two gentlemen who were referred to as the "Forest Gate Two" and it is important to try to get a feeling of what it was like for such people to be detained under legislation for a period of time. Their evidence was strong, compassionate and compelling. It is important that we see the impact of this legislation and this House's decisions on individuals detained such as the "Forest Gate Two", but I would like to go further and consider the impact on communities. I make that point in all our debates on counter-terrorism legislation.
	I know that the Government are very proud of their record in providing £12 million from the Department for Communities and Local Government for proper engagement with communities—by and large, members of the Muslim communities and their organisations. It is important to view our legislation in the light of its impact on communities, as we need to carry communities with us if we are to continue to make the case—as we have to, and as the head of MI5 made when he addressed the Society of Editors last November—for dealing with a growing threat. As we make that case, we need to carry communities with us.
	The second point, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and which I support strongly, is the need for the Government to provide more information. Obviously, the Select Committee process allows Ministers to come to the Committee and answer questions on issues of fact. I see in the House the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), another member of the Home Affairs Committee. During that Select Committee process—when we took evidence from, among others, Sir Ken Macdonald, Ministers and those affected by the legislation—we elicited information from the police on the number of people being held for up to 28 days. That was the first time we were told that nobody was held on the dot for 28 days—indeed, people were being released beforehand—but there must be a better way of getting such information to the House. That is especially important in view of Government decisions taken during the debate on 42 days to provide additional information and to seek the views of the Chairmen of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and of the Home Affairs Committee, whoever they may be in future, on any decision to extend the detention period.
	Once we have accepted the principle of consulting the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees, there is nothing wrong in those circumstances with regularly providing information to the Chairpersons of those Committees, whoever they may be. Therefore, the need for us to table parliamentary questions and to have inquiries on the issue will, in a sense, not be as important, because we will regularly receive that information.
	I hope that the Minister, rather than wait for another year to go past, will regularly provide that information, some of which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. It will better inform members of the relevant Committees of the number of people being detained and the reasons for their detention. I say that in a friendly way to the Minister, because I believe that he and the Home Secretary, in this difficult, dangerous and sensitive area, persisted in ensuring that so many people were consulted on the last piece of legislation to go through the House. In the spirit that the Home Secretary and the Minister have addressed the issue over the last few days, weeks and months, I hope that he will be more forthcoming with the information that he provides.

Bob Russell: Before the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee sits down, would he like to advise the House of the thinking of the Americans we met with regard to intercept evidence and the fact that Americans do not need 28 days? They look to Britain with some surprise because we do not use intercept evidence and we need 28 days, let alone 42.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We did indeed take evidence on that very subject when we went to Washington. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) made clear, this was a recommendation of the Select Committee and we said to the Government, "Here is an example of a tool that can be used to find out who these terrorists are so that if you prosecute, you can have a successful prosecution." That is why we put it forward. The Government have not quite accepted it.
	When the Prime Minister last addressed the House on the issue, I suppose he accepted the principle, but he said that there were lots of practical difficulties, no doubt associated with the security services, which were reluctant to have intercept evidence used in prosecutions, but that is certainly what we were told by the Americans. I will not go down the route of whether they thought 28 days or 42 days was desirable, because that would open up another debate and I think the House has probably had enough of that over the last 10 days. On intercept evidence, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is right, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh pointed out. On post-charge questioning, that is exactly what the Home Affairs Committee suggested and exactly what the Government accepted.
	Finally, let me make these remarks in the same spirit that the Government have approached counter-terrorism legislation over the last six months. I urge the Minister to consider this area and provide as much information to Parliament as possible, so that when we vote and decide on those critical issues, we are the best informed that we possibly can be with the information provided by the Government.

Bob Spink: I, too, apologise for not being present to hear the Minister's earlier remarks.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, for raising the issue of intercept evidence, which is an important option that I encourage the Government to consider carefully for the future. Like every speaker so far, I support the motion. I do so because I feel I have a duty to support it.
	I represent many thousands of constituents who work in London, which is on the front line of the world terrorist threat. Those people work to keep this country in the manner to which it has become accustomed and they put their lives on the line, so they must look to us in the House to give them the maximum possible protection from that terrorist threat. I would hate to send out a message to the world terrorist community that Great Britain has gone soft on terrorism or in its resolve to take every possible measure to counter terrorism.
	All right hon. and hon. Members support the motion. Many of them supported the extension from 28 days' detention to 42, but some, on principle, did not. Perhaps Front Benchers will use their winding-up speeches to explain why the extension by 14 days to 28 days without charge was right and a principled move, but the extension by 14 days to 42 days is somehow different and wrong in principle. I see the pragmatic differences, but I do not yet understand and no one has explained to me the difference in principle between those two extensions. I see advantages in the extensions, but I see no difference in principle. I would like an explanation of that.

David Winnick: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not see any principle being involved. Does he not accept that in non-terrorist cases the longest period for which a person can be held—the maximum—is 96 hours, after which they must be released or charged? The increase for terror suspects, which in my view was necessary and justified up to 28 days, is one thing, but it baffles me when he says that going beyond 28 days, perhaps to any figure, makes no difference and that no principle is involved.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because he allows me to make my point again. I see that there is a principle involved, but I do not see the difference in principle in changing 96 hours to 28 days, and from 28 days to 42 days. I do not see the difference in principle in those extensions. That is the point I was making. If he thinks it right to detain people without charge for 28 days, but not for 42, I would like him to meet me afterwards to explain where the principle in that difference lies, because I just do not see it.
	I believe that we must send a strong message to the international terrorist community that Britain is not opening its borders for business from those terrorists and that we are retaining our maximum vigilance and our maximum defence for all our constituents, particularly those who work in London and face that terrorist threat.
	I would like two simple assurances from the Minister. If we ever see evidence that the 28-day measure, which we are extending tonight, is being abused, I would like the matter to be brought back before the House so we can deal with it. If and when the terrorist threat abates, I would like us to go back to the situation that endured before we introduced 28 days, or indeed 42. I am sure that he will be able to give me those assurances.

Tony McNulty: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I can do no better than to paraphrase the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who, on page 136 of his excellent little book "Celsius 7/7", talks about the broad Islamist threat in precisely those terms: as and when the threat increases, it is right and proper that a democracy takes all the power it requires, within its value system, to meet that threat. Equally, as and when that threat abates, so should those extraordinary powers. As I said, without going down the pathway of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, all that we seek to do in going beyond 28 days is predicated rightly and properly on the annual renewal of 28 days' detention. For terrorist cases, 14 days is the norm, 28 days is the exception, and beyond 28 days—I shall not dwell on that debate—is utterly the exception to the exception. Partly to answer the hon. Gentleman's point further, that is why we did not come back to the House with a proposal for a universal extension beyond 28 days, annually renewed or otherwise—we have sought to outline why there are grave and exceptional circumstances in which a period beyond 28 days is required.
	Broadly, I am grateful to the House for the nature of the debate. It should be a detailed debate. As I said, as and when greater collective awareness of the ins and outs of those detained beyond 14 days is possible, that will happen. I hope that that can happen by next year, not least because a goodly number of those suitably charged beyond 14 days are already in the courts, and some are about to go before them, so matters will be resolved one way or another. None of the 11 charged beyond 14 days has yet been convicted, and to return to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), they are allowed due process before we start crawling all over the statistics relating to how they got to that position in the first place. As and when all the information is available on those detained beyond 14 days before charge, it will be right and proper to dissect that information retrospectively.
	As I said in my opening statement, this is a serious and sensitive matter—we do not depart leisurely, or in anything but a very serious spirit to respond to a threat, from the 14-day norm accepted by the House for terrorism offences. I accept the broad sweep of colleagues' comments that, hopefully, post-charge questioning, intercept as evidence, resources, greater use of the threshold test, and greater use of acts preparatory and other elements put into legislation, will mean eventually that more people are charged as close to arrest as possible. But I am afraid that I do not share the faith of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) that any of those elements will eradicate the need to go beyond 14 days, given the nature of the current threat.
	As I said during last week's debate, collectively, things such as the broader prevention agenda and the broader battle for hearts and minds—for want of a better phrase—should obviate the need for using such extraordinary legislation, by ensuring, first, that more and more individuals are dissuaded from the path of violent extremism in the first place, and secondly, that they are charged much closer to arrest than is currently possible. However, I cannot guarantee that. It is the Government's responsibility to make the judgment on the balance between guaranteeing public safety and otherwise.
	In answer to some direct questions, at least nine of the 11—if not all—were transferred to prison at day 14 and then brought back for interview, principally at Paddington Green, as and when required. In passing, let me say that the detention of individuals beyond 14 days is about not just interviewing them, but as much, if not more, about the investigatory process in which the police need to be engaged to get the evidence in order to put questions to such individuals in the first place. Invariably, as in the code, such individuals are transferred to prison post-14 days and then returned for interview. Code H says clearly that there should be eight hours' complete freedom from questioning on any given day. It is not the case that, other than during those eight hours, there is routine questioning on a regular basis. Often in terrorist cases, the investigation goes on and the individual will not say anything, and there is an iterative-type process. That goes back to the point about the times that individuals were apparently interviewed after 14 days—a point made with a degree of sophistry, I would say, by those to whom I referred earlier. Interestingly, there has been no case whatever of an accusation of oppressive questioning by any of the individuals kept post-14 days.
	On the other point made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), a Crown Prosecution Service paper—I think that it was already published—has set out in detail the extension process, and is still available on the website. We have not done a special paper on the impact of questioning on the right to a fair trial and those other elements of which he spoke, but that might be worth considering.
	At the Report stage of the last Bill on this matter, I said clearly that there would be a review of the impact on communities of all our counter-terrorism legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) made an entirely fair point in that regard. Although there are plenty of assertions about the impact post-14 days of the legislation that we are renewing today, there is no significant evidence. But as I said at a conference on stop-and-search powers last Saturday, although we are considering section 44 and the code of practice associated with it, such stop-and-search powers will have more impact on communities than the legislation under consideration. We have published information on numbers held and charged, and will try to prepare more.
	I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East slightly misreads the Bill considered last week, in the sense that we seek not to consult the relevant Select Committee Chairmen on the process, but inform them—unless I have misread the Bill—

Andrew MacKinlay: It's all a charade anyway.

Tony McNulty: That is my hon. Friend's view, and he is entirely welcome to express it, although while he is on his feet rather than from a sedentary position, if I may say so.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon is entirely wrong about schedule 8 and article 5 and the right to a fair trial—it is a tedious, circular debate. He says glibly that defendants are excluded from large parts of the hearings—wrong, as Sue Hemming said in her evidence. Just because one says something often enough, a bit like Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz", it does not mean that it comes true. Sue Hemming was very clear that in some cases the process had ex parte elements, but they were very limited. Although the law did not require anything further than the gist of the case, in many instances, certainly beyond 14 days, she was very clear that substantially more than that was provided.
	For as long as this legislation has annual renewal, however, it is right and proper that there is due scrutiny. I freely accept that, and I commend the House for the way in which it has taken place. We think that the renewal is proportionate—it is certainly temporary and rightly so. The one thing that I will not forgive the hon. Member for Eastleigh for—it is either sloppy thinking, or if he believes it, he is profoundly wrong—is the notion that we only face a threat, regardless of individuals' position, because of actions taken by this country in relation to Iraq. That is profound twaddle and nonsense of the finest order.

Christopher Huhne: The Minister knows perfectly well, and will be able to confirm if he consults  Hansard, that I never said "only". What I did say was that if there was a justification for our having already extended the period to 28 days, more than double the period allowed by any other common law jurisdiction—Australia's limit, for instance, is 12 days—it was that we faced a greater threat. The threat is greater precisely because of the foreign policy actions of this Government, who involved themselves in an illegal invasion of Iraq.

Tony McNulty: If that was clarity, I think that the hon. Gentleman has some difficulties in a broader sense. His view remains profoundly wrong, as indeed are his comparisons with international jurisdictions, based on our system or otherwise—but I will not rehearse those arguments either, because we have significant evidence, and it is rather tedious when people fall into the trap of indulging the sophistry of others.
	That said, however, I am grateful to the House for the manner in which the order has been debated. I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.
	The People's Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran, or PMOI, is opposed to the Iranian Government, and its stated aim is to replace that regime with a secular democracy. Most of its members are based at Camp Ashraaf, which is in Iraq, and under Saddam's regime it operated as a de facto wing of the Iraqi military. Although it currently describes itself as a non-violent democratic movement, there can be no doubt that the PMOI was responsible for vile acts of terrorism over a long period, stretching back some two decades prior to 2001. Those were not acts attributed to the PMOI by the Iranian authorities; it expressly admitted responsibility for a number of horrendous crimes carried out against the Iranian people, aimed at both civilian and military targets. The PMOI is not widely supported in Iran, because of those attacks, and because it fought alongside Iraqi forces against Iran in the war between the two countries.
	The PMOI says that it decided to renounce violence at an internal meeting in 2001, and that it now seeks instead to pursue its objectives by peaceful means. Indeed, it has not conducted any attacks since then, although it has not made any public statement renouncing violence. Until 2003 it maintained an extensive arsenal at Camp Ashraaf, at which point it found itself surrounded by United States forces and surrendered its arms.

Keith Vaz: Can the Minister confirm that he has had discussions with the Foreign Office about this matter, and that it agrees wholeheartedly with his decision to present the order to the House today?

Tony McNulty: The position taken by the Government to date is the position of the entire Government. When we proscribe organisations in an international rather than a domestic context, of course we consult Departments across Government, including the Foreign Office, whose position is in accord with ours.
	The PMOI was added to the list of proscribed terrorist organisations in 2001. We consider proscription to be a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that the proscribed organisation is outlawed and unable to operate in the United Kingdom. The consequence of proscription is that specific criminal offences apply in relation to a proscribed organisation. They include membership of the organisation and various forms of support, including organising or addressing a meeting and wearing or displaying an article indicating membership of the organisation. Further criminal offences exist in relation to fundraising and various uses of money and property for the purposes of terrorism.
	A group of 35 interested parties, consisting of Members of this House and of the other place, disagreed with the PMOI's proscription. A statutory procedure exists for any proscribed organisation, or anyone affected by the proscription of an organisation, to apply to the Home Secretary for that organisation to be de-proscribed. The group followed that procedure correctly, and wrote to the Home Secretary requesting that the PMOI be de-proscribed. It argued that it was no longer concerned in terrorism, having renounced violence and disarmed, and that its desire to express its legitimate support for the PMOI and its objectives was being unlawfully curtailed by its continuing proscription.
	The then Home Secretary considered the application carefully, but continued to believe that the PMOI was concerned in terrorism, which is the statutory test for proscription. He formed that view in the light of the PMOI's lengthy history of violence, in the absence of any public renunciation of violence, and taking into account the fact that it had disarmed some two years after the decision to renounce violence, and only when it had no other choice in the face of the overwhelming force of the US military.

Bob Russell: Does the Minister accept that history is full of organisations that once practised violence in support of their beliefs and subsequently followed the democratic process? They include—closer to home—Sinn Fein-IRA, and various liberation movements in what was formerly the Empire and is now the Commonwealth.

Tony McNulty: I would accept that, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the IRA is still a proscribed organisation. I discussed this just before these two debates began. I do not think that Sinn Fein was ever formally proscribed. I do accept the broad historic point that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I do not accept—if this is what he subsequently asserts—that the PMOI is in the position that he has described, and the Government do not accept it either.

Mike Gapes: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the Foreign Affairs Committee went to Iran in November last year, but one of the things that struck us then was the Iranian regime's absolute obsession with this organisation. My right hon. Friend says that it has no influence in Iran, and I think that he is probably right; nevertheless, the Iranian Government are completely obsessed with the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq, the PMOI, or whatever name we choose to give it. They even tried to organise a televised meeting between us and victims of MEK terrorism.

Tony McNulty: I take my hon. Friend's description of the Committee's visit to Iran at face value. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary considered the application carefully, but continued to believe that the PMOI—or the MEK, as my hon. Friend rightly calls it—was still concerned in terrorism. That is the statutory test for proscription, as opposed to what other countries may think.

Andrew Dismore: rose—

David Drew: rose—

Tony McNulty: I shall be happy to give way shortly. I am always—I hope—quite generous in giving way. Let me make some progress first, however. The points that my hon. Friends wish to make will not go away, given the theme that runs throughout the debate.
	While accepting that there had been no attacks since 2001, the then Home Secretary adopted a cautious approach. He was not satisfied that the renunciation of violence was more than a temporary cessation for pragmatic reasons, or that the 2003 disarmament would have taken place had it not been for the military position in Iraq and the artificially restrictive circumstances arising from it. He was concerned that the PMOI might return to terrorism as a means to achieving its objectives in the future if the situation in Iraq made possible for it to do so, and if doing so became strategically advantageous.

David Drew: It is good to hear my right hon. Friend welcome the de-proscription so wholeheartedly, but I want to know where the evidence comes from. Perhaps this will be made clear during the wider debate, but I should be interested to know what representations the Government of Iran have made about the PMOI.

Tony McNulty: As I have said, what my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary had to consider was the application from the 35 interested parties for de-proscription. His first port of call was the evidence submitted in support of putting the MEK, or PMOI, on the list of proscribed organisations in the first place.
	This decision was not taken lightly. The Government share the desire of those 35 Members of both Houses to see the advance of democracy and the promotion of human rights around the world. Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, we are committed to ensuring that proscription decisions are lawful and proportionate.
	The Terrorism Act 2000 sets out the definition of terrorism and the criteria for considering whether an organisation is concerned in terrorism. The Act does not refer to the motivation or political agenda of those who perpetrate acts of terrorism and, as the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission accepted, the Secretary of State is entitled to conclude that there is no right to resort to terrorism, whatever the motivation. We do not condone terrorism anywhere, whatever its justification or its target. These decisions must be evidentially based, however; we must not use this part of the Act to proscribe those whom we do not like. There have been many debates, and many foolish comments have been made from the Opposition Front Bench—although not by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), I freely admit—about a particular organisation, and the idea that its remaining unproscribed somehow shows a lack of willingness to engage with, and be tough on, terrorism. Clear criteria and processes are laid down, and the Home Secretary's refusal to de-proscribe was appealed to POAC, which upheld the appeal and found that the PMOI was no longer an organisation concerned in terrorism. POAC directed that the Government lay an order before the House de-proscribing the PMOI, which brings us to where we are now.

Andrew Dismore: The Minister has said that the Government had concerns about the PMOI when the former Home Secretary proscribed it and then resisted the application for de-proscription; indeed, the Government resisted that case through the judicial process. Is my right hon. Friend now satisfied that the PMOI is not engaged in terrorism, and that it has not been since 2001, and that there is no prospect of its returning to terrorism? In other words, does he fully and completely accept the findings of the judicial process?

Tony McNulty: It is almost as if my hon. Friend was looking over my shoulder at the next paragraph of my speech.
	Although POAC considered that the Government were wrong to refuse to de-proscribe the PMOI in 2006, it did agree that the original proscription was justified in 2001 and that the PMOI was responsible for many terrorist attacks over an extended period. It also stated that the Government were entitled to place little credibility on public statements made by the PMOI as its public statements contained—heaven forfend—"spin", and the evidence submitted in the course of the hearing was "contradictory and potentially misleading" and demonstrated "a shifting approach".
	Our subsequent application for permission to appeal POAC's ruling to the Court of Appeal was refused. While disappointed with this decision, we have complied with the judgment and have moved quickly to lay the order that the House is debating today. It will give effect to POAC's order and remove the PMOI from the list of proscribed organisations. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) can take both my tone and our desire to appeal POAC's decision to mean that we are not satisfied that the PMOI is no longer a terrorist organisation.

Keith Vaz: Bearing in mind that the Government lost in the courts and that the purpose of our debate today is to put the legislation right, have the Government reconsidered any of their other decisions on proscription? Is it possible that they have got decisions wrong in other cases as well?

Tony McNulty: Let me reiterate that simply because POAC arrived at its decision—we accept it in full, which is why the order is before us—does not mean we accept that POAC is right and our original position is wrong; we profoundly do not. Our job is simply to review constantly who is on, and who should be on, the proscribed list. There is nothing in this judgment that leads us to think that we should review all the other organisations on the proscribed list.

Andrew MacKinlay: The Minister needs to share with Parliament the fact that there were at least two days of closed session both at POAC and in the Court of Appeal, and that no less a person than the Lord Chief Justice of England said in his judgment that the two days of closed session with special advocates served only to reinforce his view that the decision of the Home Secretary was perverse. The Government had their opportunity in court with special advocates, and were found wanting not on one occasion but on two occasions: before POAC and before the Court of Appeal.

Tony McNulty: And, as I have said, we sought to appeal POAC's ruling, which gives a clear indication of the Government's continued position. Perfectly fairly, that was refused, and while disappointed with that decision, we have complied with the judgment and moved quickly to lay the order that the House is debating today, which gives effect to POAC's order and removes the PMOI from the list of proscribed organisations. That is entirely in keeping with the POAC ruling, and I commend the order to the House.

David Ruffley: Under part 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Secretary of State has the power to proscribe any organisation that commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Proscription is a tough power. Any organisation that is on the list of proscribed organisations is outlawed in the United Kingdom. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, or encourage support for, a proscribed organisation. It is a criminal offence to arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation, or to wear clothing or to carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that a person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Proscription also means the financial assets of the organisation become terrorist property and, as such, can be subject to freezing and seizure.
	For those reasons, Parliament must take its role in scrutinising who is on the proscribed list very seriously. On the one hand, the failure to proscribe an organisation that is concerned with terrorism could allow it to have a foothold in the United Kingdom and also to recruit and raise funds in the UK, ultimately undermining national security in this country and beyond our borders. On the other hand, proscribing an organisation mistakenly or inappropriately could tie up a significant amount of resources—involving our intelligence services and others—which is what a proscription order requires. The resources available to our security services are finite and must be targeted properly.
	As the Minister has elegantly made clear, the order seeks to remove the PMOI—or the MEK, to use a name that is employed interchangeably, which is how I will be employing it in the debate—from the proscribed list. That will, in effect, legalise it as an organisation, allowing it to recruit members and to raise funds in the United Kingdom. The decision in the Secretary of State for the Home Department  v. Lord Alton and others left the Government with no choice but to bring forward this order de-proscribing the PMOI. The Minister set out their position and answered clearly that while he will abide by POAC's decision, he and ministerial colleagues do not necessarily agree with the merits of the decision. There remain a number of questions to which Opposition Members would like answers.
	I shall not rehearse the history of the PMOI; that has been done in detail elsewhere. However, before framing my questions I would like to summarise the history of its proscription in this country. On 28 February 2001, the then Home Secretary laid before Parliament the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001, which sought to add the PMOI to the proscribed organisations list. That order was approved by affirmative resolution and the organisation has remained on that list until the time of the order before us. A Home Office press notice issued at the same time described the PMOI as an organisation that
	"undertakes cross-border attacks into Iran, including terrorist attacks. It has assassinated senior Iranian officials and launched mortar attacks against government buildings in Tehran and elsewhere."
	On 5 June 2001, the PMOI applied to the Secretary of State to be removed from the list. He said in a letter dated 31 August 2001 that he remained satisfied that the organisation was then "concerned in terrorism", as defined by the 2000 Act, in that it
	"commits or participates in acts of terrorism".
	On those grounds, the application for de-proscription was then refused. In a debate in this place in March 2005, the then Home Secretary repeated the Government's view that the PMOI was
	"a nasty terrorist organisation that has to be contained".—[ Official Report, 1 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 799.]
	In October 2005, in response to a parliamentary question, it was said that the MEK had
	"a long history of involvement in terrorism in Iran and elsewhere and is, by its own admission, responsible for violent attacks that have resulted in many deaths."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 2005; Vol. 675, c. 125.]
	Most recently, on 13 December 2007, the current Prime Minister gave evidence to the Liaison Committee, saying of the PMOI that
	"to proscribe an organisation that has been involved in terrorist activity seems the right thing to do by the decisions of this Government".
	As recently as 5 February 2008 in the other place, the Minister of State, the noble Lord Malloch-Brown, said:
	"We just believe that there has not been a clear enough renunciation of those tactics...Until we are convinced that the organisation has really forsworn those tactics, we continue to believe it to be a threat to civilians."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 2008; Vol. 698, c. 949.]

Andrew MacKinlay: I want to pause at this important point in the hon. Gentleman's speech. The representatives of the Iranian Opposition in exile repeatedly pleaded with the British Government, saying, "What on earth do you want us to do to demonstrate our good faith—that we have abandoned the military struggle?" The British Government did not want to respond; they did not want to tell them how they could prove that. One of the charges against the Government's stewardship of this matter is that they were determined, for political reasons, not to de-proscribe. They were not prepared to allow this organisation to demonstrate to them—not having to go through the courts—that it had demilitarised.

David Ruffley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that I would have used his words, which are a charge against the Minister.

Andrew MacKinlay: I said "stewardship".

David Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman also used the word "charges" and in fact made a very specific allegation. I do not myself have a view on that, but in this debate it is certainly worth airing the point that the opportunity for this organisation to prove its renunciation of terrorist tactics was not afforded to it by the Government. I genuinely do not know the answer to that, but I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to a quite serious allegation that, for my part, I have no views on. However, as I said, the matter is certainly worth airing.

David Drew: The hon. Gentleman is being most generous in giving way. He rightly refers to the history of the PMOI and the allegation that it used to attack Iran. However, he should also bear it in mind that the people who support the Iranian Opposition who live in Ashraf city, in Iraq, are under daily attack by the Iranians. It is not just British troops who are under daily attack by the Iranians; the Iranian Opposition are also under daily attack by that dreadful regime. So there is the need for some balance in these arguments.

David Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman, from his point of view, has probably supplied that balance through his remarks.
	The history of proscription gives a strong impression that the Executive of this country have serious and grievous concerns about whether this organisation has in fact renounced terrorist tactics. I make no criticism at all of Ministers in reciting the history; I merely record the fact that the advice they must be receiving from the security services and elsewhere clearly gives them pause when it comes to de-proscription. As I said earlier and as the Minister made clear, this order has been forced upon the Government—rightly or wrongly—because of a decision of POAC and of the Court of Appeal subsequently.
	I would like to take the argument forward a little by raising some specific questions that arise, given that background. The point of raising the background is to say that over the years, Ministers have, from the tenure of the now Secretary of State for Justice as Home Secretary onwards, tried to act in good faith on what is obviously a sensitive issue. However, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing would probably like the opportunity to respond to those questions.
	I am not entirely clear about what the Minister can share with us on the Government's assessment of the PMOI's terrorist capability, but it raises a question for me, given that the order will, in all likelihood, be passed tonight. The Minister will wish to know that the Conservatives will not vote against it, and we wait to see exactly how this business is finalised. Mr. Deputy Speaker will not want me to pre-empt things, but the Conservatives will not oppose the order. Nevertheless, a question remains about what understanding the Minister has about the possible reactivation of any involvement in terrorism and of the armed wing of this organisation subsequent to any de-proscribing that will be effected by the order's being passed.

Bob Russell: rose—

David Ruffley: I will give way in a moment, but I just want to pin this question down. A report in  The Times today indicates that the Prime Minister has taken a view on the issue of de-proscription. I am not clear about this, and I am sure that hon. Members will not be clear about it when they read the report. It states:
	"A Whitehall official has told  The Times that the Government will seek to ban the PMOI's military wing, the National Resistance Army of Iran...even though the group says that it is defunct."
	Again, I am not trying, in any way, to put the Minister in a difficult position, because I believe that he is a Minister who acts with good will.

David Drew: rose—

David Ruffley: I shall give way in a moment. I would be most grateful to hear an answer on that point, as I know colleagues would, given the numbers seeking to intervene on me. Although the House might be de-proscribing in this order, it raises the question of how other allied bodies, if indeed that is what they are, might be treated by Her Majesty's Government, because that seems to be a moderately authoritative report that they are seeking to ban this organisation's armed wing.

Bob Russell: rose—

David Drew: rose—

David Ruffley: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell).

Bob Russell: The hon. Gentleman has stated that Her Majesty's official Opposition will not be opposing the measure. Could he just state as clearly as he possibly can whether he agrees or disagrees with it?

David Ruffley: I shall indicate clearly that this is required of the Government. Should we be in their position—we might be in it sooner than the Minister and Labour Members think—we would have in front of us, as he and the Home Secretary have in front of them, a POAC decision. They sought to challenge it in the Court of Appeal, but they did not get leave to fight another day and were thus obliged, by law, to introduce this order. We would be in no different position from the Minister. That is about as clear an answer as I can give the House, and it is a factually accurate, legally watertight answer.  [Interruption.] I do not know why the Minister is laughing; I hope it is a laugh of solidarity, because we are supporting him on the basis of the reasons that he has given.
	The question of the merits, which is probably behind the hon. Gentleman's question—he is tempting me to opine on the substantive merits of the order—is not something that I shall address tonight, because I do not have to do so. I have to ask some of the questions that those on both sides of the argument want answered, chief of which is the one that I have just asked in relation to the report in  The Times about what action may or may not be taken against the armed wing, should it exist, that is the subject of the order.
	The second question I have for the Minister relates to the posture of the US Government. The PMOI has been designated a foreign terrorist organisation since 1987 in the US, and I wonder whether the Minister can confirm what, if any, discussions he or his colleagues in the British Government have had with the US authorities about the decision to de-proscribe the PMOI. It is important to know whether the US has expressed any concerns about the implication of the UK de-proscription on its efforts to fight and contain terrorist organisations. I am sure that this order would have a knock-on effect.
	A companion question relates to the position of the European Union, which listed the PMOI as a terrorist group and froze its assets. In December 2006, the European Court of First Instance ruled that the EU had not sufficiently justified its decision on the freezing of funds, although it did not—importantly—rule on the substantive issue of whether the PMOI was a terrorist organisation. The ruling was fundamentally a procedural argument about the basis on which funds had been frozen. I wonder again what the implications of this order will be for the EU-wide proscription of PMOI.
	Those may seem to be dull, boring, procedural—nay, even anorak-type—questions to some, but they warrant a reply. I hope that the Minister understands that I am not pressing him to go further on the substantive issue: these are factual questions to which we need an answer.
	My final set of questions will attempt to probe the Minister on the judgment by POAC, which raised some questions about decision making by Home Office Ministers. I do not mean this Minister, or even the current Home Secretary, but the Ministers who were the subject of the judgment in November. On page 131, it states:
	"In our view, in three respects the Secretary of State failed properly to direct himself in accordance with law. These overlap...the Secretary of State failed properly to direct himself to the requirements of the 2000 Act; the Secretary of State failed properly to direct himself that each of the criteria in section 3(5)(a) to (d) of the 2000 Act required a belief that the PMOI was presently (i.e. at the date of the decision) actually 'concerned in terrorist' activity as defined; the Secretary of State failed properly to direct himself as to the requirements of section 3(5)(d) of the 2000 Act."
	POAC highlighted in its judgment that there had been a failure to apply the relevant statutory tests and properly to assess the available evidence against those tests. As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has said, POAC concluded that the then Home Secretary's decision could be "properly characterised as perverse". For that to be said of any Home Secretary, of whatever political party, gives one pause for thought. The statement that the Secretary of State failed to
	"direct himself to the requirements of the 2000 Act"
	is particularly eye-catching.
	In conclusion, I wonder whether the Minister could shed some light on what lessons Ministers and civil servants are learning from POAC's quite damning report. In particular, will he tell us what action is being taken to ensure that the procedural irregularities from POAC are being adequately and swiftly dealt with so that all of us, in this place and beyond, can have full confidence that Ministers are taking decisions in the proper procedural way?

Andrew MacKinlay: I am proud to be one of the 35 people referred to in the case of Lord Alton and others. Others in that 35 are in the Chamber tonight. I deliberately say that I am proud because it was a unique group of people —[ Interruption. ] It was a unique group of people and included my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who shares my satisfaction at having been part of the campaign to have that grave injustice, as we saw it, remedied. It is worth reminding the House that among those people were Lord Waddington, a former Conservative Home Secretary; Lord Russell-Johnston, from the Liberal party; a former national agent of the Labour party, who is now in the House of Lords; Lord Archer, who was Attorney-General in James Callaghan's Government; a former Scottish Law Officer; a Conservative Lord; and the former leader of the Labour peers, Lord Corbett. Those people banded together, feeling that there was a need to persuade the Government to lift the proscription on their own initiative and, if they did not do so, to pursue it through the courts.
	I regret that successive Ministers could not be persuaded to look at the matter impartially—I use that word deliberately, because the Government have foolishly and recklessly been motivated by the desire to appease the unappeasable, namely the regime in Tehran. The Government have not executed their obligations in law or the obligations dictated by common justice that require them to consider the evidence when deciding whether to continue the proscription of the PMOI.

John Horam: I am following closely what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I agree on the subject of appeasement. Is it not true that the original decision was taken for mistaken foreign policy reasons? Although I agree with the judgment of the previous Foreign Secretary who took the decision, it was a mistake in foreign policy terms.

Andrew MacKinlay: I totally agree. We have to deal with the world as it is rather than how we would like it to be, so there has to be some engagement with the wretched regime in Tehran, but that regime should not be appeased. The decision was an act of appeasement and it was foolish—appeasement has a heavy price. The decision was based on political considerations rather than, in my view, being taken to protect us against terrorist activity. That is why we have now come to this embarrassing day for the Government.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman was talking about the evidence needed for the Home Secretary to come to a view. Does he recall a previous debate on proscription orders in which I said explicitly that it would be wrong to rely on evidence from a foreign power, and that to reach a proper decision the relevant Minister needed evidence from primary sources to make a proscription order? I received a categorical assurance from Ministers that that was the case.

Andrew MacKinlay: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. This continued proscription has been at the bidding and request—the demand—of the Tehran regime, without any evidence having been produced to justify it. That is not my view, but that of POAC, of the High Court and of the Court of Appeal. After all, the POAC decision states that
	"the only belief that a reasonable decision maker could have honestly entertained, whether as at September 2006 or thereafter, is that the PMOI no longer satisfies any of the criteria necessary for the maintenance of their proscription."
	That is the position. I have already drawn the House's attention to the fact that during both the POAC hearing and the Court of Appeal deliberations, there were days of closed session when special advocates were appointed to consider the secret evidence produced by the British Government. The Lord Chief Justice spent that time considering the documents and listening to the case from the Government's special counsel and concluded that that had only served to reinforce his view that the Secretary of State had acted in a "perverse" manner. I asked a lawyer what that signified. He said, "Saying that people are 'perverse' is the nearest the Lord Chief Justice comes to being rude." Such was the uniqueness of the occasion.
	I also want to pick up on the interesting intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee. He said that when he went to Iran, he saw how the regime was obsessed by the PMOI and related organisations. I will be signalling to Tehran tonight that the British House of Commons unanimously passed an order lifting the PMOI from proscription. There will not be a Division; it will be a unanimous decision in the House of Commons. I welcome that, but it needs to be reiterated. The United Kingdom embassy in Tehran also has to note that that will be the position tonight after we have concluded our deliberations.

Mike Gapes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for citing what I said, but I do not want him to misrepresent my position, even inadvertently. I said that the Iranian regime is obsessed. However, my assessment is that the PMOI has almost no internal support in Iran. It may be active in this country, Sweden and other parts of the world, but there is a widespread, diverse and complex democratic opposition in Iran and it is a caricature of the politics to say that only one organisation leads them. Unfortunately, this debate could lead to the impression that there is only a choice between the regime in Iran and the PMOI. That is not the reality.

Andrew MacKinlay: In any event, only time will tell. However, I look forward to the day when the regime in Iran falls and everyone there has an opportunity to present their cases in a democratic political marketplace. That is the objective of many hon. Members.
	We should also refer to paragraph 57 of the Court of Appeal judgment. It says:
	"It is a matter for comment and for regret that the decision-making process in this case has significantly fallen short of the standards which our public law sets and which those affected by public decisions have come to expect."
	That is a very serious condemnation—let me be generous— of the stewardship of this matter by the Home Office. It has ignored its obligations. The Court of Appeal indicated that the closed material
	"reinforced our conclusion that the applicant"—
	namely the Home Secretary—
	"could not reasonably have formed a view when the decision letter was written in 2006 that the PMOI intended in future to revert to terrorism."
	There is no evidence to suggest that this is a momentary pause in the activities of the PMOI or that it is an irreversible decision—a unilateral renunciation of, in the parlance, the military option. It is incumbent on democracy in this place to give rewards when people, on their own initiative, abandon military activity or what others describe as terrorism.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case, but will he be a little more generous and accept that organisations and people's views of them change over time? It is Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday. He had form, according to some people, but went on to advance democracy, freedom and human rights in the way that the PMOI is in Iraq. As times change, views can change.

Andrew MacKinlay: Absolutely. That was my case, the case of the other 34 Members of the House of the Commons and the House of Lords, and the case of the Iranian opposition in exile. Things do change, as history tells us. A year before Jomo Kenyatta was invited to Buckingham palace to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, he was described by the Crown's representative as the prince of darkness and death. People change and get respect. [ Interruption.] Yes, there was also Archbishop Makarios. One day, the people who are in exile will be in government in Tehran and the British Government of the day will be trying to rewrite history, just as the right hon. Lady who led the Conservative party rewrote history when we welcomed Nelson Mandela in Westminster Hall. I have no illusions about this, but I welcome the fact that people change their minds. The British Government should have been more generous in acknowledging the change in attitude of the Iranian opposition in exile.
	The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) raised some pertinent issues, and I hope that they are addressed. There was considerable anxiety following the report in  The Times that the Prime Minister had "instructed"—I think that that was the word—the Home Secretary to re-proscribe another grouping or what is described as its military wing. When the hon. Gentleman mentioned that, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, "The military wing of the military wing." I want a reassurance that we are not going to have a cat-and-mouse act in this respect. In any event—I say this with the greatest respect—the Prime Minister will certainly need to read the decision of the Court of Appeal if he is ever tempted to go down this road. The POAC and the Court of Appeal both said that there are certain tests that the Home Secretary is under a duty to apply. It is now demonstrably clear that political considerations—the appeasement to which I referred—cannot come into that. They are legal tests, not political tests. It would be a big mistake if the Government were tempted to do what has been suggested, and I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the report in  The Times is unfounded.
	The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds also said that, under European Union rules, the fact that the United Kingdom had proscribed the organisation meant, ipso facto, that the whole EU had done so. The corollary of this evening's unanimous vote will surely be that the British Government will communicate to the EU that the House of Commons and the other place have unanimously decided that the proscription should be lifted, and will invite the EU to reassess its position. That would be the sensible and fair outcome of the debate.
	In conclusion, it is important to reiterate that the people in Camp Ashraf hold no weapons. They are under repeated attack and in serious danger. To use a simple phrase, they are taking these blows on the chin. They are turning the other cheek. We know that the source of these attacks is in Iran. It is bewildering to many Members that the Secretary of State for Defence has indicated, with great candour, that some of the ordinance used against British armed forces and coalition forces has its roots in Iran, implicitly with the full knowledge and consent of the Iranian regime. The PMOI and related organisations have been a significant source of information and intelligence to the United States and, ipso facto, to the United Kingdom Government and the coalition forces about the nature of the nuclear threat being developed by the Tehran regime.
	It is a matter of fact that the people in Ashraf have protected person status under the fourth Geneva convention, and I believe that there are moral obligations on coalition forces, of which we are part, to see that those people are protected. I want to state for the record that the United States, which has stewardship of that area of Iraq, has done an enormous amount to protect the people of Ashraf, to the extent that it has allowed them to have bank accounts and so on. That is not something we normally facilitate for terrorist organisations. Why has that been allowed? It is because the United States is satisfied about the stand-down of the people in Ashraf—its demilitarisation—and the fact that they are open and transparent about their activities. Why can the United Kingdom Government not have the same generosity of spirit and common sense as our coalition partner, the United States? That is my request—the Government should pause and reflect.
	In my 16 years in the House of Commons, I have not known an issue that has united Members of Parliament from both Houses, and from across the political spectrum, as much as this one. We saw the action of the British Government as foolish and not in the long-term best interests of the UK. It was unfair and perverse. I hope that tonight, we have given the Government the opportunity to pause and reflect in order to remedy the wrong that they have perpetrated against those people. I am proud to have been part of the campaign to bring about the order, which will be passed unanimously by the House of Commons.

Christopher Huhne: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who stated, with a good deal of passion, what many hon. Members feel about the way in which the Government have proceeded.
	I will not go over the full history of the way in which the People's Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran got on to the list of proscribed organisations. Its inclusion was controversial even at the time and its public announcements that it had disarmed and renounced violence were especially clear. It is surprising that the Government maintained their proscription in the face of mounting judicial reviews of the decision, beginning on 12 December 2006, with the European Court of First Instance and continuing with the POAC High Court decision on 30 November 2007. The hon. Member for Thurrock described fairly the Lord Chief Justice's reaction to the evidence that the Government brought to bear in secret session. Despite all that, the Government persisted in attempting to defend the proscription.
	That persistence suggests that other forces must have been at work in the decision. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) is the only Conservative Member to give the Government the benefit of the doubt—a minority position these days. It was even suggested that the Home Office was possibly right—obviously, that is one theory—and that all the judges who examined the matter in the European Court and in the High Court had been bamboozled by the evidence that they saw in public and in secret session.
	I would perhaps give more weight to the second theory: when Ministers look at a document that is stamped, "top secret", "highly confidential" and "for your eyes only", they tend to give it greater weight than the public information that stares them in the face. That has happened in judgments about the middle east, not least those about the illegal invasion of Iraq. We could go back further. Only weeks before the Shah was toppled in Iran, I remember that a Foreign Secretary predicted firmly, on the basis of little evidence, that the Shah would be there for ever and a day. Clearly, that was an exceptional misreading of what was happening. Perhaps we are considering a case of secret information being given far too much weight. However, such information did not persuade the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. Given that he is used to sifting evidence, whatever the source, we should give that opinion enormous weight.
	Some hon. Members have hinted at the final theory for the Government's reluctance to move, and I hope that it is not right. It is that, in what is meant to be a quasi-judicial matter laid down by statute, the Government have put foreign policy considerations before an assessment of the evidence. The Liberal Democrats suspect that that happened when the Serious Fraud Office's investigation into al-Yamamah was dropped, following public and doubtless private pressure from the Saudi Arabian Government. I would like the Minister's reassurance—if someone could communicate with him, given that he is showing his usual courtesy of not being bothered to listen to speeches—that there was no influence from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the ground of Britain's foreign policy. We would also like an assurance that the Government of Iran exerted no influence, directly or indirectly.

Mike Gapes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government should never, in any consideration, take account of the advice that they receive from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on any issue?

Christopher Huhne: If the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has clear evidence that the PMOI is a terrorist organisation, it should give that evidence. That would be perfectly within its remit. However, I am suggesting that wider foreign policy considerations should not be taken into account in this case, because we are talking about a matter of British domestic law and a fundamental freedom, which we have respected in this country for many years, according to which, if I may paraphrase Voltaire, even if we disagree with what people say, we will nevertheless defend their right to say it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the House has defended that principle over many years and should continue to do so.
	Therefore, I repeat: I hope that foreign policy considerations have not been brought to bear on what is a matter of defending freedom of speech, freedom of activity and freedom of organisation in this country. Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, I for one would like an assurance from the Minister on that score. That said, we are happy to support the removal of the PMOI from the list of proscribed organisations. The only question is why it has taken so long, when the evidence has been so great and when the judicial review has been so extensive. At the very least, the Government appear to have been extraordinarily dilatory.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is evident that three Back Benchers are seeking to contribute to the debate. I have to give the Minister the time to reply, so a tariff of around seven minutes would enable everyone to address the House.

Mike Gapes: I hope to be less than seven minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would like to respond directly to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), by quoting the unanimous conclusion of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs report on Iran, which was published a few months ago:
	"We conclude that Iran is a complex and diverse society at present governed by a theocratic regime. Iran's quasi-democratic political system is not fully closed and may lead to reform that will result in a more constructive approach on the nuclear issue. We recommend that the Government should be careful to avoid action that could be manipulated by the hardliners such as President Ahmadinejad to bolster their position against the more pragmatic and reformist elements ahead of his campaign for re-election in 2009."
	That was said in the context of the nuclear issue, but I also believe that, in relation to politics within Iran, we need to be sensitive. That is why I intervened on the hon. Gentleman.
	Categorical statements that we should never do anything that takes account of anything in any other country are simplistic and dangerous. Sometimes, we have to be sensitive in the choices that we make and in the way we handle issues, because of the consequences that they might inadvertently have in other countries. Therefore, if the Government were receiving advice—I do not know that they were—that certain issues, handled in a certain way, might have had adverse consequences on another issue, such as the E3 plus 3 negotiations on the nuclear issue, they would have been right to take account of those wider issues and form a rounded judgment, rather than responding with a knee-jerk reaction.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If the House had believed that it was important to take account of the sort of foreign policy considerations that he is listing, it would have included that provision in the legislation. Can he point to any part of the legislation that allows the Home Secretary to do what he is suggesting?

Mike Gapes: That is not the point that I am making, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying deliberately to change the terms of what I said. He made a categorical statement that we should not take account of foreign policy aspects.

Christopher Huhne: It's unlawful!

Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman can try to intervene, but he should please not shout from a sedentary position.
	The situation that we face with regard to Iran is this. A group of people are being held, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) said, in a kind of limbo in Camp Ashraf. The question that has not been answered in this debate so far is: why are they there? Those people are on that site because, for many years, they were living in Iraq and being protected by Saddam's regime. I have been told many times, over many years, by many people in the Kurdish political movement that those people were used by Saddam for his own purposes for the repression of the Kurds and other minorities in Iraq. If those people were to be released from Camp Ashraf today, they would face the threat of death if they were returned to Iran. If they were released into Iraqi society they would also face death threats from the many very angry Iraqis who remember them as allies of the brutal Saddam regime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has pointed out, the United States and others have a responsibility to find a solution to that problem.
	We must take into account, however, that the PMOI organisation is not—and certainly was not in the past—an organisation that we would necessarily support as the democratic, legitimate opposition in Iran. There is no doubt that it is against the mullahs' regime, but let us go back to the history of what happened between 1978 and 1981. It was like the falling out between Stalin and Trotsky in the Russian revolution, involving different elements within a revolutionary process who ended up on the wrong side. There are many other Iranians, including people who came out of the monarchist tradition, the social democratic tradition, or the Islamist tradition, who have not been involved in violent activities. Those people would strongly dispute the claim that the PMOI is the sole legitimate opposition to the regime in Tehran. It would be dangerous if this House were perceived to have given support to one political opposition group and, by making this decision today, we will be doing a disservice to many other Iranian democrats, liberals and secular people, as well as to the moderate Islamists and monarchists who oppose the regime in Tehran.
	It is not in this country's interests simply to say that the matter has been resolved. It was clear from the Minister's remarks that the Government have concerns about this organisation and its future, and I hope that they will report back to us regularly. If there are any indications of a breach of the conditions, of a potential terrorist threat from that organisation, either in this country or abroad, or of fundraising activities for illegitimate purposes, I hope that the Government will review today's decision.
	I do not believe that de-proscribing an organisation means that it has been given a clean bill of health for the future. In the past, the PMOI had admitted to being engaged in activities that we would define as terrorist activities. It is not engaging in such activities today. As the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) pointed out, people change over time. If that organisation is not engaged in terrorist activities today, and does not intend to do so, that is very good. However, we need to be careful that we do not give the impression that we are giving it carte blanche for ever. We need to be sure that any organisation based in this country is involved only in peaceful, democratic activities, and that it is not supporting terrorism in this country or in any other part of the world.

David Amess: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) described the Minister's speech as gracious. I assume that he was being sarcastic, because it was certainly nothing of the sort. It was a disgraceful and churlish speech. When the House considers this terrible matter, it is clear that the Government have behaved appallingly with the Foreign Office saying one thing and the Home Office saying another. The Minister's position tonight was disgraceful and it is a pity that the Home Secretary did not stay to listen to his speech.
	The PMOI has been seeking to bring an end to the terrorist and barbaric regime ruling Iran. More than 120,000 members and supporters of the movement, including boys and girls as young as 12, have been executed by the regime. Mrs. Maryam Rajavi and her supporters should be congratulated on the huge sacrifices they have made on behalf of others.
	The Minister cannot possibly dismiss what the Lord Chief Justice said in the Court of Appeal's judgment of 7 May 2008. I repeat what he said then:
	"It is a matter for comment and for regret that the decision-making process in this case has significantly fallen short of the standards which our public law sets and which those affected by public decisions have come to expect."
	That is an absolute disgrace. I firmly hope that today the Government have turned a page in their relations with the Iranian regime on the one hand and the Iranian people and their legitimate resistance to that regime on the other.
	I hope that the Minister will dissociate himself from the article in today's edition of  The Times, which was written by its deputy political editor, that told us that the Prime Minister
	"has ordered... the Home Secretary to ban the PMOI's military wing instead".
	We are told that, apparently
	"Iran has been exerting pressure on ministers to keep the ban on the PMOI, which is part of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. 'They have threatened to withdraw diplomats over this unless the ban stays,' one well-placed figure said."
	The Government must take immediate steps to ensure that the PMOI is removed from the European Union asset freeze list. The Government must accept that although the UK was a competent authority upon whose decision the EU listed the PMOI, now that that decision has been declared unlawful, the listing of the PMOI in the EU is also unlawful. At the same time, the Government must recognise the National Council of Resistance of Iran, as well as the PMOI, as being the legitimate opposition to the Iranian regime and engage in dialogue with them about the future.
	Of course I commend the Prime Minister for his announcement last week that Britain and a few other EU states would be imposing further sanctions on the Iranian regime's banking, oil and natural gas interests. However, the Government need to go much further. They should adopt a firm policy towards Iran, including blacklisting the revolutionary guard while applying comprehensive sanctions against the regime.
	The message to the mullahs in Tehran needs to be very clear: Britain will no longer have anything to do with a mediaeval regime that stones women to death, hangs children in public, exports fundamentalism and terrorism across the middle east, trains, funds and arms terrorists responsible for the killing of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as coalition troops, and pursues nuclear weapons.
	The order is a matter for rejoicing for all those people who want freedom in Iran, and it is a matter of shame for Her Majesty's Government that it has taken them so long to bring it forward.

David Drew: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), particularly when he has given me rather more time than I thought I would get for my speech. It was also a particular honour to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) who has raised this matter more than anyone else in the House. Indeed, he has raised it on countless occasions in order to bring justice and fairness to bear. This victory is his, along with a few others. I am not sure what the 35 of us will be called in future; the "Chicago Seven" was an interesting epithet, but we will just take it as one of those victories that was well deserved and long overdue.
	It was with some disappointment that I heard my right hon. Friend the Minister say what he said; he could have been more magnanimous. As the hon. Member for Southend, West said, he was somewhat churlish. In a sense, it is surprising that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), speaking from the Conservative Front Bench, had to bail the Government out somewhat by saying, "There must have been some justification. We don't know what it is, but there must have been something because of the case that those people kept putting across."
	The reality is that the writing had been on the wall for some years and it would have been much better to accept the judgment of POAC rather than going through to the Court of Appeal. The Government would then not have received the admonition of the Lord Chief Justice, whose words were carefully chosen. I do not know what it has all been about. If there was such strong evidence for the proscription, I would have thought we would have heard it by now, but all the evidence has been to the contrary. It has been a question of when, not if, the de-proscription would take place.
	I pay tribute to the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Talk about a democratic campaign: we cannot go out of a tube station, attend a political party or go into Central Lobby without being lobbied by those people. That is what we call politics in this country. They have done it democratically. They have lobbied many of us on numerous occasions to get their point of view across. One would have thought that if there was a contrary point of view, one would have heard it and felt threatened in this country by the gestures of the PMOI. One would have thought that one would have heard what was happening in Iran.
	I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) says—one has to consider balance and take account of the fact that when there is a democratic Iran there will not necessarily be one particular party in the ascendancy. We do not know. All I know is that without the PMOI and the NCRI in this country, we would probably have not, in the wider field of things, heard about Natanz and the reprocessing. We owe them an obligation for the fact that they spilled the beans on the Iranian regime to make it absolutely clear that what was going on there was reprehensible, and the rest of the world has followed suit and taken action against the Iranian regime.
	We hear today that there is a possibility of even stronger sanctions, but without those who took an enormous personal risk in going inside Iran and saying what was going on in reality, we would not know all that and we do know it. We should acknowledge that and hold up our hands in admiration for those who take such risks.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say somewhat more magnanimously that the right decision has now been arrived at, notwithstanding the caveats that always have to be put in place. I hope also that he will at least disown the report in today's edition of  The Times. If that is spinning, it is most unhelpful. We may have to be careful that we are not seen to be too much in bed with one opposition group, but at the same time we should make it absolutely clear that we do not in any way support the regime in Tehran. If that regime thinks that it can lean on a Government here or a Government elsewhere in the EU, or indeed if it feels that it can get its way in the United States, where the proscription stays in place, that is wrong and it needs to be said that it is wrong.
	I am pleased that we have arrived at this decision and sorry that it has taken so long.

Mark Williams: I concur with what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) said about the message that the House and the other place have sent. How does the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) believe that his Government will advance the case at EU level? I have been associated with the NCRI, as he has, and one of the central cases that it has made is the need to lift the ban and the freezing of resources at European level. What does he expect of his Government on that matter?

David Drew: That is a perfectly fair question, dare I say, to turn back to my right hon. Friend the Minister. As a number of speakers have asked, what will now happen with the UK Government's role in EU terms? Putting words in my right hon. Friend's mouth, I hope that the Government say that under no circumstances will they carry on with any proscription and that they will say categorically that the de-proscription, which I hope will go through this place unanimously to deliver a clear verdict, should take effect in the EU. That should be our diplomatic position as well as our political position here.
	I hope that we have clarity. I hope that we have made a statement in defence of democracy and in defence of an organisation that is clearly, according to those of us who have stood with it, one that has changed its stance. We are now coming forward in supporting that stance.
	I hope that the Minister will now see that and say the obvious thing: that the Government have listened and learned and will now recognise that the PMOI, through its political front, the NCRI, has a part to play in a future Iran, and has a part to play through the proper political process.

Tony McNulty: First, the Government have always argued that the Secretary of State was entitled to take a cautious approach when considering the PMOI's application for de-proscription. No one, not least POAC, argues that when the original proscription was made in 2001, it was not a terrorist organisation. Indeed, the POAC judgment says that there were reasonable grounds for the belief of the Secretary of State that the PMOI was "concerned in terrorism" at the date that it was originally proscribed, 29 March 2001.
	As I tried to show in my introductory remarks, it is the PMOI's assertion—we would say—from 2003 onwards that it had forsaken the armed struggle. Versus POAC's ultimate decision to take that at face value, the Government took the more cautious approach that it was not the case. The notion that we are dealing with some wonderful little gang of democrats who have never raised arms in anger, or taken terrorist action, is erroneous and not the case at all. Our contention was that, given its long and active history of committing acts of terrorism, and its failure publicly to renounce terrorism or voluntarily surrender its weapons, it should remain proscribed, on the criteria that it remains involved, or potentially involved, in terrorism, and no more.

Christopher Huhne: Has the Minister heard anyone in the House today suggest that the PMOI was a gang of democrats that never lifted an arm in anger? I have not heard that.

Tony McNulty: It was certainly the assertion of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and at least part of the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), as we will be able to see in  Hansard. I am terribly sorry if this disappoints, but it is our duty: we will not hesitate to re-proscribe the PMOI if circumstances change and evidence emerges that it is concerned in terrorism. It is not some reckless cat-and-mouse game, but our duty and responsibility under the legislation. That is all there is to it.
	To reiterate the point of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the judgment relates solely to the PMOI and has no direct effect on the proscription of other organisations. We have already strengthened our processes for reviewing the proscription of organisations and dealing with applications for their de-proscription, and will of course consider those again in the light of the judgment.

Bob Russell: Is the Minister giving a clue to how the article appeared in  The Times today?

Tony McNulty: I do not need to give clues; I shall come on to that point.
	Our role, job and responsibility is to keep organisations that we feel are involved in terrorism under review. I know of no dealings with the Americans in this regard, but, as hon. Members have said, it is quite proper that the PMOI is listed under EU common position 931, based on a national competent authority decision that we discuss in detail the consequences of the de-proscription order. We will discuss with our European Union partners the implications of the United Kingdom de-proscription in the light of the EU list, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud suggested. I think that that was a perfectly fair point.
	All groups under consideration for proscription or de-proscription are kept under review. There is no substance in the story in today's  Times. As I have said on other occasions when we have dealt with proscription orders, I will not be giving the House or, more important, the organisations concerned due notice of whether we are going to proscribe them. I think Members will understand that, given the nature of the circumstances. However, although we do not normally discuss whether groups are being considered for proscription, I can say in response to the  Times article that there are currently no plans to proscribe the National Resistance Army of Iran. I can also say that with de-proscription comes a watching brief from the Government, not least because of our position on these matters, churlish or otherwise. We still favour the cautious approach.
	Let me say again to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that if the group resorts to terrorism and the evidence is clear that it meets the statutory test under law and no more, we will consider the case for re-proscription My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) said that the PMOI had been given no opportunity to prove that it was not a terrorist organisation, and quoted from a 400-page judgment. Nothing in the law has impeded the PMOI from applying for de-proscription, or any interested party from doing so on its part. Such applications give organisations the opportunity to provide evidence that they are not concerned in terrorism.

Andrew MacKinlay: That was not my point. My point was that the PMOI and related organisations had knocked on the Government's door and said "Dear British Government, what can we do to demonstrate that we have demilitarised? What would you like us to show you?", and that their request had received no response. That was my point, and it is a simple one. It is history now, because we are going to pass the motion unanimously, but my right hon. Friend should not try to rewrite history.

Tony McNulty: It is not the Government's job to tell a proscribed organisation what it needs to do to be de-proscribed. That is absolute nonsense.
	POAC concluded that there was no credible support for the assertion that an agreement had been reached with Iran pursuant to which the PMOI would remain proscribed, still less for the assertion that it would remain proscribed even if the statutory criterion for proscription was not fulfilled. My hon. Friend has thrown around wonderful words like "appeasement" and "reckless". As ever, he has been very nice and very loud, but very wrong.
	I can tell the hon. Member for Southend, West that we shall not be meeting the PMOI, because we do not consider it to be a credible opposition group. We also have no plans to meet members of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Nor—if I may deal with another of my hon. Friend's points—do we agree with the assertion that the PMOI/MEK or the NCRI constitutes the Iranian Government in exile. I repeat that the PMOI's terrorist acts resulted in the deaths of many Iranian citizens. It fought against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, and we see no evidence of popular support for either organisation.
	The judgment turns on our cautious approach. Given the history of the organisation since 2003, we simply do not believe that its intent is entirely passive and peaceful. POAC's judgment, to which it is entitled, is that the organisation's assertions that it is no longer involved in terrorism and taking up arms are genuine and that it should therefore be de-proscribed. In the light of that judgment, we presented the order as quickly as we could. I hope that it will be passed unanimously, as forecast by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock—and I do not doubt that Members will rush out of the Chamber and start rewriting history as we speak.
	I commend the order to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and in passing, and not in connection with this very serious matter, I wish you a very happy birthday for what remains of it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Immigration

That the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment No.2) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 14th May, be approved. —[Steve McCabe.]
	 Question agreed to.

REGULATORY REFORM

Ordered,
	That Stephen Hammond be discharged from the Regulatory Reform Committee and Mr. Mark Prisk be added.— [Tony Cunningham, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

Planning and Development (Essex)

Bob Spink: I acknowledge the need for more housing to meet the uncontrolled immigration that flows from our membership of the costly European federal project, but we are under attack from inappropriate developments of flats without sufficient parking, which in this case will damage the very heart of our community—our ancient St. Mary's conservation area. I hope that local councillors will accept that the purpose of the conservation area is to conserve it, and reject the application. I congratulate everyone who has signed this excellent petition—they are stars—and, of course, Brian Keeler and Mr. and Mrs. Patel, who organised it, are excellent leaders in our community, and they are to be roundly congratulated on their work and community-spirited actions.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Brian Keeler, Mr and Mrs Patel, the residents of Castle Point and others,
	Declares that they object to the proposed demolition of the two shops at 1 to 5 High Street Benfleet, to make way for a commercial development with seven 2 bed flats in an unsympathetic and unattractive 2 and 3 storey development above shops, with only seven parking spaces, putting unacceptable pressure on alternative local public parking facilities which are increasingly inadequate, that this development would further spoil the Conservation Area and create unacceptable stress on the existing infrastructure, including roads, schools, rail, doctors, dentists, etc. Further declares that they urge Councillors to reject this development for these and for many other valid planning reasons, and to ensure that this application is decided by Councillors rather than officers, given the importance to the wider community of protecting their unique Conservation Area.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to press Castle Point Borough Council, the three Boyce Ward Councillors and all mainland Councillors in particular, to reject this planning application and to substantially protect the unique St Mary's Conservation Area.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000218]

NORTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE CORE SPATIAL STRATEGY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Steve McCabe.]

Philip Hollobone: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting me permission to hold this debate this evening, and I welcome the Minister to his place to listen to the concerns of my constituents, and to respond in due course, on the very important subject of the north Northamptonshire core spatial strategy.
	North Northamptonshire is the biggest single housing growth area outside London. That is the fate the Government have decided is appropriate for my part of the world. Because of their plans, north Northamptonshire, which comprises the districts of Corby, Wellingborough, Kettering and East Northamptonshire, is set to grow to a planned population of more than 370,000 by 2021. That means that it will by then be a community equivalent in population to Bristol today.
	In that plan, north Northamptonshire is supposed to witness the creation of some 52,100 new homes and 47,400 new jobs. It is a massive development on an unprecedented scale for Northamptonshire, and I have to say to the Minister that it is not a popular development in Northamptonshire. Were these proposals put to a test of popular opinion through a referendum they would be soundly rejected, because local people are rightly worried about the scale of the proposed development and the speed with which it is being rammed through. Local people are also worried that whereas at the start they were clearly promised by this Government infrastructure, jobs and then houses—in that order—what they are actually getting is lots more houses, precious few extra jobs, and infrastructure going backwards instead of forwards.
	The subject of tonight's debate is the core spatial strategy, which was officially adopted by the north Northamptonshire joint planning committee at its meeting on 12 June. To the credit of local authorities in the north of Northamptonshire, the joint planning committee is an innovative concept. Rather than having a Government-imposed development corporation making all the decisions about where houses should go and in what numbers, where jobs should be provided and so on, the local authorities in the north of the county got together at an early stage and decided to work on a different model whereby they would co-operate to try to create the best conditions for the new growth coming to the county. That is not to say that they were all in favour of the scale and pace of the development that the Government are imposing, but they felt that the best way to get the job done correctly was to keep the decisions local, so they decided to get together to form the joint planning committee.
	The core spatial strategy that they adopted at the meeting of 12 June aims to ensure that the plans for the more than 50,000 new homes go hand in hand with the investment in jobs, infrastructure, services and environmental improvements that we have all been promised, so that growth benefits the existing communities in north Northamptonshire, as well as the new residents who have yet to arrive. This is the first strategic plan to be agreed in the whole of the east midlands, and the first in the UK to be prepared by a number of councils working together as a joint planning unit.
	Believe it or not, the plan is the culmination of three years' work by the joint planning unit, involving extensive studies and consultation. It was subject to an independent examination last winter, when a Government-appointed inspector looked at it and at the representations made by both developers and other interested parties. The inspector's report was published on 15 May 2008 and, not surprisingly, endorsed the overall approach that the plan laid out.
	The independent inspector was appointed by the Secretary of State on 22 February 2007 to carry out this independent examination. A pre-examination meeting was held on 4 July, and the examination itself was conducted by way of written exchanges and a series of hearings held between 23 October 2007 and 13 February 2008. The inspector's report contained his recommendation
	"that the submitted Core Spatial Strategy...is sound, pending an early review to provide longer term certainty over infrastructure, housing and employment provision".
	The point I wish to make to the Minister this evening is that, despite the time that preparation of the core spatial strategy has taken, it is actually a highly flawed document that is causing widespread alarm among residents in north Northamptonshire. I urge the Minister and his Department to ensure that, even though it has been officially adopted by the north Northamptonshire joint planning unit, there is an early review to provide the much-needed certainty about infrastructure, jobs and housing that, sadly, the present document does not provide.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, as usual. The problem as I see it with the new strategy is that some of the fundamentals that local people wanted have been excluded. Wellingborough council wanted a right to strategic gaps between the villages and the urban areas, but that has been removed by the inspectorate. That seems a very strange way of dealing with local democracy.

Philip Hollobone: My hon. Friend is a powerful champion for his constituency and, as always on this issue, he is spot on. Indeed, the policy of strategic gaps—green areas between major developments in the county—was described in the draft core spatial strategy as "Policy 6"; I am looking at the inspector's amended report, where that policy has lines all the way through it. That is of great alarm to residents in the north of the county, and it is an issue to which I wish to return later in my remarks.
	The scale of the development that the Government envisage for my part of the world is truly alarming, although the Minister might think that "alarming" is a strange word to use. I am not against economic development or housing development, but local residents are concerned at the scale and speed of the proposed development, which most of them would argue is simply not sustainable, despite the core spatial strategy's conclusions.
	Let me illustrate the scale of some of the proposals. By 2021, there are supposed to be an extra 52,100 new houses in north Northamptonshire, of which 16,800 are to be in Corby, 13,100 in Kettering, 12,800 in Wellingborough and 9,400 in east Northamptonshire. The quinquennial breakdown of that housing growth is also alarming to local people. They are noticing new houses going up all over north Northamptonshire at the moment, but they may not be aware that, according to the Government plan, the rate of housing completions is meant to increase sharply. Between 2001 and 2006, some 8,190 houses were to have been completed in north Northamptonshire, but in the current period—2006 to 2011—the figure rises to 12,655. For the period 2011 to 2016, the figure rises to 15,560, and there is to be a similar total for the period 2016 to 2021, 15,695. Local people simply are not prepared for that rate of growth in the number of housing completions, and those figures are of alarm to my constituents.
	I wish to highlight some of the most worrying aspects of the core spatial strategy report, which lead me to conclude that it is a fundamentally flawed document. It is a very big document—fortunately, it is publicly available on the north Northants joint planning unit website—running to more than 90 pages, and it really is a most riveting read. Some of its most important paragraphs are buried away in the detail of the text. I wish to refer not to the final report, as adopted, but, for ease of argument, to the inspector's amended report before the final document was approved. On page 28 of the report, which was published in May 2008, one finds in item 3.16 this particular gem:
	"Due to known constraints on current highways it is essential to seek improvements to enable the anticipated growth. It may not be possible to upgrade the highway network to accommodate all of the proposed growth. It will therefore be necessary for there to be a substantial reduction in the proportion of trips made by private car. This Plan aims for a modal shift away from car use and road freight haulage, towards more sustainable alternatives. For residential development this Plan has a target of a 20 per cent. reduction in car journeys in new developments over 200 dwellings ...and a 5 per cent. reduction for existing areas."
	I expect that the Minister lives in a sort of rural community like mine.

Parmjit Dhanda: indicated dissent.

Philip Hollobone: Perhaps not; perhaps the Minister's area is more built up. May I tell him that in north Northamptonshire the idea that car use can be cut by 20 per cent. in new housing developments is simply fanciful? It may be that in an urban area people can be persuaded out of their cars on to public transport, if sufficient provision is made, but I am sceptical that a 20 per cent. reduction in car journeys can be made by people who move into those new developments. It is simply not possible for many people in north Northamptonshire to survive without the use of a motor vehicle. I suggest that that particular aspect of the core spatial strategy is fundamentally flawed.
	Policy 2 is entitled "Connecting North Northamptonshire with surrounding areas". It states
	"North Northamptonshire's connections with surrounding areas will be strengthened and enhanced to ensure that these are to the standard necessary to fulfil the role expected of them."
	Well, that is good. Among the priorities for further work and investment in north Northamptonshire in the period to 2021 are
	"Provision of additional capacity on Midland Main Line services calling at Kettering and Wellingborough."
	That sounds fantastic, but in fact the rail services to and from Kettering and the north will be halved this December, and the additional capacity mentioned amounts to the spare seats on the train service from St. Pancras to Corby.

Peter Bone: I have fresh up-to-date information on the rail capacity from Wellingborough. My wife travelled up today and had to sit on the floor as all the seats were full.

Philip Hollobone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that observation and I am sorry that his wife had that unfortunate experience. As we know, that is a daily occurrence on services between Kettering and Wellingborough and London. It is an absolute disgrace that passengers from those places have to stand for an hour on a train all the way to London, when they are often paying as much as £73 for a return journey. The additional capacity that has been promised to local people is a huge con trick. In fact, the fast inter-city services will disappear from Kettering, and the additional capacity, such as it is, will be on stopping services calling as far north as Corby, which is just next door.
	Policy 2 also mentions the road network. Highlighted as a priority is:
	"A43 Kettering to Northampton dualling".
	In the final document, the word "dualling" has been replaced with "improvement". That will be horrifying to local people, because the A43 links the county town of Northampton with Northamptonshire's second town, Kettering. It is the busiest, most congested and most dangerous road in the area. There were plans to dual this road, but they were axed by John Prescott in 1999, who then produced the basis for this housing development plan in the Milton Keynes and south midlands growth area plan.
	Here we are in 2008, nine years on from the axing of the dualling programme, and it is confirmed in black and white—in fact, by a thick red line—that the Government do not want the road dualled. My constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) will have to suffer further congestion and dangerous driving conditions for the foreseeable future.
	That places in sharp relief the words of the Secretary of State for Transport, who used to be the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. In a debate last year—I was in my place at the time and noted her words with glee—she said:
	"Given my experience at the Department for Communities and Local Government and now at the Department for Transport, I can assure him that the two Departments are joined at the hip when it comes to planning for more houses".—[ Official Report, 4 December 2007; Vol. 468, c. 679.]
	I would suggest to the Minister that the evidence from the north Northamptonshire core spatial strategy suggests completely the opposite.
	If we go further into the document, we see that paragraph 3.25 on page 31 states:
	"The Plan supports re-opening the passenger rail station and service to Corby... providing a service to London St Pancras."
	That is great. I think that we would all support it. The strategy goes on to state:
	"Opening this link will be advantageous to North Northamptonshire in the longer term by promoting passenger services north to Leicester".
	Completely the opposite is happening. In December, East Midlands Trains will halve the number of trains running north from Kettering to Leicester. The service will be cut in half, and that hardly ties in with the words
	"by promoting passenger services north to Leicester".
	Further down the page, in paragraph 3.29, the strategy states:
	"The provision of a distributor road to the east of Kettering, linking between the A43 Northern By-pass and a new junction on the A14 may be brought forward as part of the proposed sustainable urban extension provided that environmental issues can be adequately addressed."
	That is absolutely super, but the strategy goes on to state:
	"Although transport modelling indicates that this road is not essential for development planned to 2021",
	it could provide
	"access to the sustainable urban extension and provide some traffic relief to Kettering town centre, villages to the east and the A14. Development proposals should safeguard the potential for this distributor road."
	I am staggered that the document can say that transport modelling indicates that this road is not essential for development planned to 2021.
	Under the plans in the core spatial strategy, there is provision for 5,500 houses to be built to the east of Kettering. I have to tell the Minister that unless the eastern bypass is built there will be excessive traffic congestion throughout the town of Kettering and villages to the east will be simply gridlocked. The villages of Weekley and Warkton will be particularly affected by the development. Some 10,000 vehicles a day run through Warkton, and it sits on the busiest C road in the county of Northamptonshire. If those 5,500 houses are built to the east of Kettering, Warkton will have construction traffic going through it all the time and will be an extremely unpleasant place in which to live.
	I come now to policy 6, which is the infamous "strategic gaps" policy. I have reached page 37 of the inspector's amended report, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough will confirm that the whole page has been crossed out with thick red lines. That is extremely alarming, because in north Northamptonshire there are the three main towns of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough, which sit more or less on top of each other in a straight line. It is very important to local people that those towns remain three distinct and separate communities. That was the purpose of the strategic gaps policy, which, before it was obliterated, stated:
	"To prevent neighbouring urban areas from merging into one another, strategic gaps, comprising land that has a predominantly urban and/or rural appearance, will be maintained between"—
	there follows a list of the towns and villages that will be separated, including Kettering and Corby, Kettering and Isham, Wellingborough and Ecton, Wellingborough and the Harrowdens, Wellingborough and Finedon, Wellingborough and Irthlingborough and Wellingborough and Rushden.
	The fact that that policy has been obliterated will sound alarm bells across north Northamptonshire, because it raises once again the nightmare scenario of a linear city being created between Corby and Northampton with Kettering and Wellingborough in between. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough will be able to confirm that the phrase "the linear city" comes from an early Government consultee's report that tried to steer the development of the local area away from that nightmare scenario. Yet here we are, in 2008, and a policy designed specifically to prevent that scenario from happening is being obliterated line by line.
	And so the document goes on. There is an important section under item D called "Delivering Infrastructure". Paragraph 3.41 on page 39 reveals that the policy in the draft said:
	"The proposed housing growth is only acceptable if it is accompanied by the necessary improvements to physical and social infrastructure."
	What is wrong with that? That provides the guarantees that local people want. However, that sentence has been crossed out and replaced with:
	"The proposed housing growth will need to be supported by improvements to the physical and social infrastructure."
	The wording has been very subtly but importantly watered down, and as a result it does not give local people the confidence that they need that growth will become sustainable in their local area.
	There should be infrastructure triggers in the document. There should be specific commitments that if the infrastructure is not provided up front or at the same time as the housing growth, extensions to the housing growth targets should be shelved. Those triggers are not in this document. There is further analysis of infrastructure in paragraphs 3.48, 3.49 and 3.50, which come under the title "Phasing of Infrastructure". Paragraph 3.49 says:
	"Key strategic infrastructure constraints identified in North Northamptonshire are the limited capacity of sewerage infrastructure and levels of congestion on the A14."
	It suggests a number of remedies for those problems. One is the expansion of the Broadholme sewage treatment works. To deal with the road issue, it is suggested that
	"a separate carriageway should be provided to take 'local' traffic off the A14 between Junction 7 (A43 Northern Bypass) and Junction 9 (A509), together with widening the A14 to three lanes in the section from Junction 9 to 10".
	In a way, that is quite encouraging, because the spatial strategy is identifying the infrastructure that will be needed to cope with the housing growth. However, paragraph 3.50 goes on to say:
	"Further technical work is needed to prepare and evaluate these projects and each will be subject to the usual statutory procedures including public consultation. The timescales involved in planning, funding and delivering these major infrastructure projects means that, dependent on the rate at which development proceeds, there may be a delay between the need for the improvement and when it can be put in place. For example an expansion of Broadholme treatment works is unlikely to be achieved before 2013 and the first stage of the A14 improvement may not be complete until 2017."
	That is alarming in two respects. One is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, whose constituency includes the Broadholme sewage treatment works, knows, those works will reach capacity in 2010. There will therefore be a three-year gap, and that could get very smelly for the Wellingborough constituency. Furthermore, the document says that
	"the A14 improvement may not be complete until 2017."
	The Minister needs to understand that this is a spatial strategy document looking at housing growth up to 2021. Most of the extra housing is meant to be in place by the time the improvements to the A14 arrive. One would think that the sensible thing would be to say, "Right. We cannot have the housing growth unless the infrastructure improvements to the A14 are in place"—but not a bit of it. The document says that
	"the interim solution to the A14 constraint may involve a range of measures to manage local travel patterns, together with the Department for Transport relaxing its congestion targets for Junctions 7-9."
	On the desk of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), there is a proposal not to widen the A14 to three lanes but to carve up the two lanes on either side of the carriageway into three without widening the carriageway at all. When we add that to the Department for Transport relaxing its congestion targets, we get the nightmare scenario of the A14, which is already a killer road around Kettering, becoming even more dangerous and frightening for local people to drive on.
	 It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Khan.]

Philip Hollobone: We then go on to policy 7, which has also been substantially amended. This one is called "Infrastructure delivery and developer contributions". In the draft document, it said, very sensibly:
	"Planning permission will not be granted for new or expanded Sustainable Urban Extensions development until appropriate solutions to infrastructure constraints have been agreed with the appropriate delivery body."
	Excellent, fantastic; that is the sort of support that local residents wanted to see. But no—that text has been crossed out. The document also said:
	"If there are delays in infrastructure provision, the future review of the Core Strategy will reduce the scale of development to be accommodated within the phasing period or defer it to a subsequent period."
	Very sensible. But no—that too has been crossed out.
	The Northamptonshire branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England has contacted me to highlight its huge concern about the amendment to policy 7. It says:
	"We consider it vital that infrastructure should be in place before development takes place, but this requirement which was in the first draft of the Strategy has now been deleted by the government inspector following the Examination in Public. Policy 7 of the Strategy now permits all development regardless of the provision of infrastructure. In its desire to get development under way, the Government is building up trouble for the communities and local authorities who will have to deal with what the developers leave behind."
	Further alarm will be caused in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies by the fact that, as the strategy states, there is no way that it can meet the Government's target for the percentage of new homes that are built on brownfield land. It says:
	"High priority will be given to the reuse of suitable brownfield sites".
	Great. However, it continues:
	"North Northamptonshire has a limited supply of such sites and, with the substantial levels of development proposed, cannot achieve the national and regional targets of building 60 per cent. of new homes on brownfield land. A more realistic, but still challenging, target is for at least 30 per cent. of new housing to be provided on previously developed land and buildings."
	It goes on to quantify 21,500 homes as the estimated amount of housing that will need to be built on new greenfield sites in north Northamptonshire by 2021. So there we have it in black and white: the housing expansion policy in north Northamptonshire will not be able to meet the Government's stated aim of 60 per cent. of new build taking place on brownfield sites.
	When the Government announced the Milton Keynes and south midlands housing expansion strategy in 2001, local people were led to believe that infrastructure would be provided up front and that the quality of life for existing residents would be enhanced at the same time as the quality of life for new residents would be provided for. That is not what has happened at all. We have not had infrastructure, jobs and then houses, but houses, not many more jobs, and then infrastructure going backwards.
	The rail services to and from Kettering are being cut, the A14 is getting more and more congested and the best that local people can hope for is some kind of improvement to the road in 2017 at the earliest. The A43 Kettering to Northampton road, which is the busiest, most congested and most dangerous road in the county, was to be dualled, but that has been taken out of the programme. Strategic green gaps between the major towns and villages in the north of the county were protected by the initial policy, but they have been scrubbed out by the inspector. The limited promises on the phasing and delivery of infrastructure, enshrined in the draft report, have also been axed.
	The core spatial strategy document is fundamentally flawed. It does not give local residents in my part of the world the assurances that they need with regard to the rate, scale and speed of housing development in my constituency and neighbouring ones. That is a mistake, the responsibility for which rests with the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Peter Bone: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) on making such a splendid and reasoned speech. He truly speaks for the people of Kettering and for north Northamptonshire, and his interest in this subject dates back to before he was elected to this House. I am delighted to see the Minister in his place; he is held in high esteem by the House, and I know that he will listen to our arguments.
	I do not want to rehearse what my hon. Friend has said, but I would like to add one or two points about Wellingborough. My hon. Friend talked about the A14, and he is right to do so because it is a killer road. He was also right to talk about the A43. In my constituency, the A45-A6 interchange is also extremely dangerous—we have had an Adjournment debate in this House on the issue—but there is nothing in any programme about the improvement of that interchange. It is not even in the 15-year forward programme. The Highways Agency thinks that it is a good idea, the county council thinks it is a good idea, the local council thinks that it is a good idea and the local people think that it is a good idea. But it is just not happening.
	On Saturday, I attended a public meeting in the village of Isham, which is one of the villages that would be dramatically affected by the loss of the strategic gaps. I was at the meeting because of flooding, which my hon. Friend touched on. During three of the last five years, there has been significant flooding, with sewage floating in people's homes. When I asked local people the reason for that, they told me that it was the result of development of housing in the area without any improvement in infrastructure. It is hard to come to any other conclusion. My constituents fear that with the huge increase in housing that Wellingborough is already committed to, but with no improvement in the sewerage and drainage systems—there are no planned improvements—that issue will become a widespread concern. The problem with infrastructure can only get worse with the north Northamptonshire development.
	I do not really want to make a party political point, but I will. In my constituency, under a Labour Government and a Labour county council, one of the secondary schools has been knocked down. All the other secondary schools are overcrowded, but we are going to bring in all these new houses with nowhere for the children to go to school. People do not move in without children, but that point does not seem to have been addressed anywhere in the Government's thinking. They just believe in building new houses. I understand their thinking—they are not evil people. They are thinking that people need homes, but they fail to recognise the need to provide the matching infrastructure.
	My constituency has no hospital and lies in the worst primary care trust in the United Kingdom, according to the Government's figures. If we cannot get to a hospital now, and there are excessive delays and cuts in services, yet all the new houses are to be built, where will my people go to hospital? Sometime in the past, the plans suggested that there should be a new hospital, but that proposal has been lost—it simply will not happen.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the subject before the House yet again, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will continue to press on variants relating to the development until the Government listen.
	I want to give the Minister an idea of the unpopularity of the loss of the strategic gaps. Last Thursday, a by-election took place in Wollaston, which is a small village with many open fields between it and Wellingborough. It was announced that there was a danger of building on the fields. On a 33 per cent. turnout, the Conservative candidate got 816 votes and the Labour candidate got 97, and the strategic gaps were the main issue in the election. The Conservative majority increased by 50 per cent. I ask the Under-Secretary, not on party political grounds, but out of justice, to listen to local people.

Parmjit Dhanda: I congratulate especially the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) and also the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) on their contributions. The hon. Member for Kettering is known in the House for his assiduous work and his concentration long into the night. I noticed that the documents in his hands had many green post-it notes stuck to them. I am sure that he studied his 90-page document in great detail; he read out some snippets to us. I shall try to respond to as many of his points as possible.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, the north Northamptonshire core spatial strategy was adopted in June this year. It represents a significant milestone in the realisation of the Milton Keynes and south midlands growth area—the wider growth area that he mentioned. It is the first core strategy of its kind to be produced by a joint planning unit and the first to be adopted in the east midlands. Many of the points that both hon. Gentlemen made about their constituencies were addressed not only to me as Under-Secretary, but to the joint planning unit and, I dare say, the local development company, as they do their work locally. It is important to remember that the joint planning unit comprises planning officials from an array of district and county authorities, as they try to piece together all the work on regeneration, infrastructure and, indeed, housing.
	I hope that both hon. Gentlemen acknowledge—I believe that they do—that housing is a key priority for the Government. In the past 35 years, under all Governments, we have not built nearly enough homes. Pressures and imbalances between supply and demand have resulted from increased longevity and changes in the way we live. We need to build more homes to tackle that imbalance. There are far more households of individuals rather than couples and families, and far more older people. I looked at the statistics as the hon. Member for Wellingborough was speaking and I saw that life expectancy remains above average in Northamptonshire. I am pleased that the indices for employment show that the claimant count is below average.
	Our housing Green Paper, "Homes for the future: more affordable, more sustainable" makes it clear that we must go further to tackle the housing needs and aspirations of current and future generations. I accept that changes are difficult—in my constituency and in every constituency in the land, including those of the hon. Gentlemen.
	We have set a new housing target for 2016 of 240,000 additional homes a year nationally to address growing demand and affordability. They will not be just houses; they will be homes, let us remember, in the hon. Members' constituencies. The Green Paper set out proposals to deliver a total of 2 million new homes by 2016 and 3 million by 2020.
	Milton Keynes and south midlands will provide the highest level of growth in any growth area between 2001 and 2016, delivering 210,000 new homes. I congratulate the hon. Gentlemen on the fact that their constituencies are desirable locations where people want to make their homes. As the hon. Member for Kettering said, north Northamptonshire's share of that will be 52,100 houses up to 2021, with a further 13,975 identified in the draft east midlands regional spatial strategy, which is to be delivered by 2026.
	The north Northamptonshire core spatial strategy acknowledges that that proposed housing growth will need to be supported by improvements in infrastructure and recognises that the delivery of that infrastructure is dependent on partnership working between the public and private sectors. Both hon. Gentlemen centred on the importance of infrastructure, which I shall return to in a moment.
	The north Northamptonshire core spatial strategy gives a key role to the North Northants Development Company to work with infrastructure providers to identify needs and secure the timely delivery of facilities and services. The North Northants Development Company is due to submit a development plan to the Department for Communities and Local Government in the autumn. From my experience of working with such companies and seeing what they have done in other parts of the country, I know that they can make a difference. Indeed, I am sure that the company will have tuned into this debate and listened to every word of it, and will be reading it in  Hansard tomorrow, too.
	As well as acknowledging the vital role of local partners, the Government fully recognise the role that we have to play in helping to unlock growth and create sustainable communities by supporting that infrastructure development. That is why we have provided a variety of funding to deliver growth in the Milton Keynes and south midlands growth area and elsewhere. Under the growth area fund, north Northamptonshire has so far received just under £30 million, of which it received £10 million under round 1, between 2004 and 2006, and just under £20 million under round 2, between 2006 and 2008.
	I hear what the hon. Gentlemen said, and what the hon. Member for Kettering said in particular, about the coming years and the possible strains on infrastructure. Among other things, the money already set aside has been used to help fund the regeneration of key parts of Kettering town centre, a new civic hub in Corby town centre and improvements to Wellingborough high street.
	The results of the third round of the growth area fund were announced in December 2007. Under that exercise, north Northamptonshire was awarded just under £29 million to fund further work over the three-year period between 2008-09 and 2010-11. Under the first round of the community infrastructure fund, north Northamptonshire received more than £7 million to help fund a Corby northern orbital road, the building of a new road and the upgrading of an existing one, plus improvements to the A45 near Wellingborough.
	The House has heard the concerns that the hon. Member for Kettering expressed about road infrastructure and further improvements that need to be made. I hope that those involved—the joint planning unit and the development company—will work with hon. Members. It is important that Members of Parliament should have a role, working with development companies to ensure that they tailor the best solutions for their local communities, through the available funds. MPs are uniquely placed to do that, as pillars of their local communities and as people who listen to them, each day and each week.
	Bids for a second round of the community infrastructure fund are currently under consideration. I understand that north Northamptonshire has submitted several expressions of interest under this exercise. It is expected that decisions on which expressions of interest can go forward to the full bid stage will be made in just a few weeks' time, in July, so hon. Members will not have too long to wait, and the announcement of successful bids will be made in February next year.
	Transport infrastructure was at the core of the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate tonight. Further transport infrastructure funding has been made available by the Department for Transport via the local transport plan. Over the period of its first local transport plan, Northamptonshire received £84 million. We are part way through the second local transport plan period, under which the county will receive a further £95 million. I know that upgrading the transport infrastructure is very much a focus of attention for partners in north Northamptonshire, especially on the A14 and A45 trunk roads. I also know that north Northamptonshire has engaged with my ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport on these issues and that ongoing work is taking place to come up with solutions to the issues posed. I hope that both hon. Members will be keen to continue to ask questions. The hon. Member for Kettering has already had an Adjournment debate on a similar subject a couple of months ago, which was responded to by my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister.
	I fully recognise that infrastructure is a key issue for north Northamptonshire—and, indeed, all areas engaged in the growth agenda—but I hope that the examples of funding that I have mentioned will help to illustrate that the Government are fully committed to playing their part in resolving these issues, and that we are keen to work with Members of Parliament, local authorities and the development companies to support this process in the long term.

Philip Hollobone: I sense that we have a little longer for our debate than the Minister was anticipating, and I am grateful to him for giving way. What can he say to the Department for Transport with regard to the A14? Most people in my constituency believe that, if the improvements are not made to the road until 2017, it will be far too late. Tens of thousands of new houses will already have been built by then, and a road that is already congested will have become even more dangerous.

Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point on behalf of his constituents. This is about a partnership to decide on the greatest local need. The hon. Gentleman obviously has a clear idea in his own mind of what that is. The joint planning unit and the development company in his constituency are progressing their work and liaising with and talking to the Government. I do not have a magic wand with which to resolve all the problems with different roads, but I hope that that partnership at local level, alongside the lobbying of the Department for Transport, might result in some of the money being focused most relevantly on to the areas of greatest priority and need in his community, including the two roads that I have just mentioned.
	As I was saying, I hope that the examples of funding that I have mentioned will help to illustrate that the Government are fully committed to playing their part in resolving these issues, but questions in the House and debates such as these are all part of the process, which is why I welcome them.

Peter Bone: I am very encouraged by the Minister's remarks, which seem to represent a shift in policy. In relation to the A14 and the A45, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) and I had understood that improvements could be made only if the regional assembly had agreed to them, despite the fact that the Highways Agency, the county council and the local council all thought that they were a good idea. May we be encouraged to think that the money could be spent locally without reference to the regional assembly?

Parmjit Dhanda: As the hon. Member for Wellingborough will know, so much of this will depend on local plans and local priorities as pressed for by the county council and his county authority. I have not been privy to those discussions and I am not a Transport Minister, so I will not make up policy on the hoof. What I can say, however, is that they presented their case and it is important that they do so. The relationship with Parliament is important, as is the connectivity between themselves. I am sure that they are well aware of the relevant local officials and local politicians—those involved with the joint planning unit and those who are members of the development company in their own patch. It is important to continue to have that dialogue and I am sure that they will.
	I know that the north Northamptonshire joint planning unit and its partners, which have had a bit of hard time in the course of this debate, have received congratulations not least from the Minister for the East Midlands, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope). He recognised that the strategy provides an excellent example of joint working. I would like to add my own congratulations to the unit and all those concerned on producing this important strategy. It is not an easy piece of work. The hon. Member for Kettering has highlighted points 3 and 16 on page 28, but I do not know the wider context. Let me be honest and say that although I have had a flick through, I have not read all 90 pages of the document— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wellingborough is shaking his head, but I would not want to misrepresent in any way what is in that document. I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentlemen have either, but it is important to take account of the full context of reports.
	I acknowledge that there is much more to do. This is the first development plan document—or DPD—to be adopted as part of the north Northamptonshire local development framework. I understand that about 14 further DPDs are currently scheduled in the agreed north Northamptonshire local development scheme. That represents a very significant work load and I would encourage all the responsible partners to look again to find opportunities to streamline the number of DPDs. I offer that encouragement in the spirit of wanting to see north Northamptonshire succeed in realising the ambitions set out in the core spatial strategy and to build on this promising start.
	Although both hon. Gentlemen have their differences with much that they have seen in the document, I think that they would accept that there are some very important and good things in it. I would strongly encourage those in north Northamptonshire and elsewhere to look closely at the opportunities presented by the revised version of planning policy statement 12 on local spatial planning. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing has already acknowledged that the new spatial plan-making system introduced in 2004 has proved to be unnecessarily complicated, but we have taken that into account and listened to concerns, so the revised PPS seeks to create a fairer, more streamlined and, I hope, transparent spatial planning process. In doing that, it places community engagement at its heart, while stressing the need for robust evidence and active engagement with infrastructure providers.
	I would particularly like to emphasise that we want to see community engagement at the heart of the local plan-making process and I urge the hon. Member for Kettering to engage with the further development of the north Northamptonshire local development framework and to encourage his constituents to do likewise.
	As I have said, there is still much more to do and many challenges to face—not least in developing infrastructure. I would like to repeat that the Government will strive to play their part in resolving the challenges before us as part of the partnership and I would like to restate the importance of tackling the need for more housing—failure to do so would be to fail our children and future generations.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.